Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Zizek

Chomsky is not without his faults too .. he is good at explaining but I have not read anything by him with possible solutions to overthrowing capitalism and his critique of Intellectual property while protecting his own is laughable .

I agree that no one should be seen beyond critique, of course... But the two are like a comparison of a merely good pupil [Žižek] and really involved, engaged, conscientious pusher of issues and puller or proper interests, someone who actually tries to get to a Novelty, and so a no-brainer... for me, that is...

Chomsky may well go wrong but at least he is trying to do something of his own, misteake, warts and all... And I for one am a sucker for this, much more than a "sicher player" like Slavoj, which I find fundamentally boring, exasperating and really poor, however superficially enetertaining in its shocking value, at times...
 
U used to go to pubs with Miladin Zivotic, Gajo Petrovic, Milan Kangrga, get a book from Habermas, borrow a few books from Perry Anderson...:cool:
 
I would tease them with their intellectual and political opponents' charges to get the best of their arguments... Very informative and entertaining at the same time...
 
Zizek a few minutes ago talking about the financial crisis at Queen Elizabeth Hall:

  • All capitalist businesses have the tendency to turn into pyramid schemes.
  • Amazing that the US could raise billions completely undemocratically for the banks in a matter of days, but world hunger, the environment etc is a sideshow.
  • Draws parallels with the manner different regimes framed the Great Depression to suit their own ideologies, and thinks the government's main job in the coming months is to introduce and perpetuate a narrative explaining the reasons for the crisis that will enable capitalism to survive.
  • Thinks the culturalisation of politics and debates over tolerance are a red herring, as the rise of fundamentalist islam is heavily correlated with the failure of the left to provide an alternative. "Every fascism bears witness to a failed revolution"
  • Thinks that governments are mistakenly going to try and hold back fascist ideology by introducing it in milder versions (attacks on immigration etc)
  • Claims liberalism is not strong enough to sustain the assault that it is going to come under in the coming years. Unless liberals redefine their relationship with leftism as interdependence rather than antipathy, Zizek claims we are going to end up either in some sort of fascism, or more likely with a system like China, with lip service paid to socialist ideals in the initial period, reverting to essentially western-style capitalism with less freedom and democracy.
 
I think the New Left Review article he wrote "How to begin at the beginning" is an excellent piece of work. He basically repeated this at the Marxism conference a few years back under the title "how to be a revolutionary today?" and it's great to see all this being said in front of Alex Callinicos and the SWP.

Here's a link, well worth a read. http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2779

A lot of these themes were expounded upon by him in the book First as Tragedy, Then as Farce, which is a good read, very succinct by his standards.
 
Zizek had this on the LRB blog too: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/10/28/slavoj-zizek/democracy-is-the-enemy/ Thought this bit was good:
Here, Marx’s key insight remains as pertinent today as it ever was: the question of freedom should not be located primarily in the political sphere – i.e. in such things as free elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, respect for human rights. Real freedom resides in the ‘apolitical’ network of social relations, from the market to the family, where the change needed in order to make improvements is not political reform, but a change in the social relations of production. We do not vote concerning who owns what, or about the relations between workers in a factory. Such things are left to processes outside the sphere of the political, and it is an illusion that one can change them by ‘extending’ democracy: say, by setting up ‘democratic’ banks under the people’s control. Radical changes in this domain should be made outside the sphere of such democratic devices as legal rights etc. They have a positive role to play, of course, but it must be borne in mind that democratic mechanisms are part of a bourgeois-state apparatus that is designed to ensure the undisturbed functioning of capitalist reproduction. Badiou was right to say that the name of the ultimate enemy today is not capitalism, empire, exploitation or anything of the kind, but democracy: it is the ‘democratic illusion’, the acceptance of democratic mechanisms as the only legitimate means of change, which prevents a genuine transformation in capitalist relations.
 
For once I can not only understand what the hell he's on about, I can actually agree to an extent as well. I think where I don't agree is the bit about "the acceptance of democratic mechanisms as the only legitimate means of change". I'll have to re-read the whole thing before I commit to that tho.
 
Thats said,it's a banal almost tautologous point that's been made for over a century from both the right and left. To get rid of rep democracy you have to go beyond rep democracy
 
true - and someone like Ellen Meiksins Wood seems to be able to put it across better as to why 'democracy' can be safely let loose on the political sphere without it having any impact on, or threat to, capitalist social relations (without being a self indulgent tosser as well)

The differentiation of the economic sphere in capitalism, then, can be summed up like this: the social functions of production and distribution, surplus extraction and appropriation, and the allocation of social labour are, so to speak, privatized and they are achieved by non-authoritative, non-political means. In other words, the social allocation of resources and labour does not, on the whole, take place by means of political direction, communal deliberation, hereditary duty, custom, or religious obligation, but rather through the mechanisms of commodity exchange. The powers of surplus appropriation and exploitation do not rest directly on relations of juridical or political dependence but are based on a contractual relation between 'free' producers —juridically free and free from the means of production - and an appropriator who has absolute private property in the means of production.....

......In a sense, then, the differentiation of the economic and the political in capitalism is, more precisely, a differentiation of political functions themselves and their separate allocation to the private economic sphere and the public sphere of the state. This allocation separates political functions immediately concerned with the extraction and appropriation of surplus labour from those with a more general, communal purpose. This formulation, suggesting that the differentiation of the economic is in fact a differentiation within the political sphere, is in certain respects better suited to explain the unique process of Western development and the special character of capitalism.
 
Back
Top Bottom