Fascism!

[josef k.]

I mean the whole four paragraphs, and the logic of their structure.

 

[josef k.]

I don't think his conclusion is wrong, but I question its pertinence with regards to the rhetorical fireworks which came before it. He ends with, what I think, a true declaration. But what he has persuaded you to pick up along the way?

 

[vimothy]

If Zizek is such a great fascist, so capable of politically mobilizing everyone in the greater service of Leninism, why did Zizek lose and lose badly in the Republic of Slovenia general election in which he ran for president?

Where are all these mobilized Zizekian fascists? Where do they live? What kind of power do they actually have?

This question just seems entirely preposterous on the face of it.

Indeed. In that sense, Zizek is no different to The Worst-Case Scenario book from his anecdote.

You were saying that people should take Zizek seriously. Of course, no one takes him that seriously. It is, I can admit, a very good joke.

 

[josef k.]

But on whom?

 

[nomadthethird]

Indeed. In that sense, Zizek is no different to The Worst-Case Scenario book from his anecdote.

You were saying that people should take Zizek seriously. Of course, no one takes him that seriously. It is, I can admit, a very good joke.

Huh?

Heidegger was a Nazi, but he had interesting ideas. In fact, Badiou's entire language, his entire ontological vocabulary of jargon, is lifted directly from Heidegger.

So. what.

 

[josef k.]

And I wonder how aware Zizek is of this. And therefore, how calculated it is... And therefore, of what the calculation is.

 

[nomadthethird]

I mean the whole four paragraphs, and the logic of their structure.

What about them?

 

[josef k.]

Nomad, do you think Zizek means what he says, and says what he means? Or not?

 

[vimothy]

To which we should perhaps ask the Leninist question: subversive to whom? We can surely agree that Zizek mobilizes a form of subversion from norms. But what is the nature of this subversion? To call it fascist is probably misleading.

Yes... interesting thought. Is it more than mere, ah, rhetoric, in a whimsical sense? I guess I'm being naive here.

 

[nomadthethird]

Indeed. In that sense, Zizek is no different to The Worst-Case Scenario book from his anecdote.

Hookaaayy. No differences whatsoever.

 

[josef k.]

Yes... interesting thought. Is it more than mere, ah, rhetoric, in a whimsical sense?

I don't know. Nomad thinks it is - arguing that it provokes thought in general, and this is good. I think more specificity is needed. What kind of thought? What kind of organization? Us, I guess, is one such.

 

[nomadthethird]

Nomad, do you think Zizek means what he says, and says what he means? Or not?

What about anything he says in the article Vimothy's posted is particularly not-serious seeming?

I think he uses reversals to tease out the contradictions inherent to most of our political experiences/beliefs/convictions/actions/ideals, like Derrida did our ontological ones ("aporias") through deconstruction, but simply with a more Hegelian-inspired "dialectical" method and a more topical and polemical strategy.

 

[vimothy]

Hookaaayy. No differences whatsoever.

We've just established the fact that the hordes are not mobilised by Zizek -- that's the analogy. He talks about the way that narratives have rights in the essay I linked to. You are permitted a sterilised place for critique, just as long as you don't doing anything crazy.

 

[josef k.]

Is Zizek, then, arguing for the necessity of a sterilized place to critique from? He claims not be doing this... but perhaps this is just his mass market strategy?

 

[nomadthethird]

Hell, if Zizek is a fascist, what must Althusser be? The Anti-Christ himself? Trotsky is Satan.

Gramsci is a demon. Bordieu is a minion.

 

[craner]

Mathematics is weird ornithology.

Christ, I'm glad I missed this argument over the weekend. Unlike Delueze, Foucault or Zizek, Badiou isn't even worth arguing over, surely? There was a good reason his books weren't translated for 15 years, and it's not because they're important.

 

[nomadthethird]

Is Zizek, then, arguing for the necessity of a sterilized place to critique from? He claims not be doing this... but perhaps this is just his mass market strategy?

It's not about "sterile/tainted", it's about the role of universal axioms in political discourse, and their importance in the face of pomo multiculturalism and moral relativism.

It's a little "retro", it's not exactly groundbreaking shit here.

 

[nomadthethird]

Mathematics is weird ornithology.

Christ, I'm glad I missed this argument over the weekend. Unlike Delueze, Foucault or Zizek, Badiou isn't even worth arguing over, surely? There was a good reason his books weren't translated for 15 years, and it's not because they're important.

Right because popular things are better.

 

[craner]

Explain yourself, darling.

 

[vimothy]

Is Zizek, then, arguing for the necessity of a sterilized place to critique from? He claims not be doing this... but perhaps this is just his mass market strategy?

^^Rational choice

They'll never let you back in now, Josef.