Customer Reviews

In Defense of Lost Causes

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

If for nothing else, you should buy this book because it engages, in a direct and rigorous fashion, with the thought of various luminaries of the Left. While Zizek's discussions of Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Robespierre are stirring in their own right, his assessments of Antonio Negri, Ernesto Laclau, Simon Critchley and fellow-traveler Alain Badiou are acute and incisive. Of especial interest is his careful evaluation of the latent ambiguities in Badiou's political thought, probing its interstices and interrogating its silences. Also crucial is Zizek's neo-Deleuzian injunction to `repeat' Lenin, to actualize the multiple virtualities that Lenin missed. The importance of Zizek for our time lies in his continued exhortation to look beneath the post-structuralist affirmations of endless differentiation, creativity and diversification- tropes that are in no way inimical to the `permanent revolution' of global capitalism- and discern the underlying sameness beneath the protean flux. For instance, what is repressed/disavowed in the First World's triumphalist discourses on limitless mobility and decentralized organization, what is its hidden subtext? As Boltanski and Chiapello have told us in The New Spirit Of Capitalism, the movement of some requires the inertia of others- the nomadic flight of today's jet-setting executive is made possible by the sweatshop worker, the office janitor, outsourced labor. As such, the properly `transcritical' attitude (Kojin Karatani) is to refrain from treating `globalization' as a revolutionary break, a `cut' in history- we must identify the residual sediments of the past that persist in our purportedly `postmodern' age (traces of premodern feudalism in Japan, the predominance of noncapitalist forms of production in South America). This theory of `uneven development' means that we should regard all celebratory affirmations of globalization with extreme suspicion.

The Capacity to Govern: A Report to the Club of Rome; Crazy States: A Counterconventional Strategic Problem



This book is divided against itself: parts of it are outstanding while other parts are esoteric and non-sense other than for members of a strange sect of what I call novo-Marxists.

Its basic theses that failures of the actual praxis of revolutions do not negate some of their values and that global capitalism should not be accepted as irreplaceable by better alternatives are well taken. The discussions of coping with biogenetics are fascinating. And many other insights make the book as a whole worth reading.

However, instead of focusing on main theses and working out coherent alternatives to global capitalism, or at least indicating ways to inventing such alternatives, the book gets lost in at least four labyrinths: (1) It devotes a lot of space to debates with other "sect members" on esoteric issues and responses to their criticism of the author's writings; (2) the book is one-dimensional in its assumptions on human psychology, relying i on some versions of Lacan and Lacanian reinterpretations of Freud, completely ignoring alternative and not less "scientific" schools of psychology; (3) it is captive to Marxian paradigms, making artificial efforts to fit important ideas into outdated language games, instead of bravely developing new paradigms; and (4) the authors pins his hopes on "trust in the people" without any non-anecdotal justification either in history or social sciences.

The fourth error is the most serious of all, undermining the main thrust of the book. The author relies on the new global excluded population of slum-dwellers as the new "good old Marxist...proletarian revolutionary subject " (page 425), where one should look for "signs of the new forms of social awareness that will emerge from the slum collectives: they will be the germs of the future." (page 426). This ignores the realities of slum populations as revealed in empirical studies, ignores radical differences between various groups of slum populations, and leaves out of account the near-certainty that if they should endanger a state or the global order, they will be easily and effectively "repressed" in one way or another.

The author demonstrates in this book ability to contribute to an urgently needed paradigmatic global revolution, but not as long as he is captive to phantasm. What is really needed is some kind of a "Global Leviathan" containing the danger of "the acts of a single socio-political agent [who] can really alter and even interrupt the global historical process [for the worse, up to global calamity] (page 421, my additions in brackets) and to take care of new forms of the "common" as rightly discussed by the author. But such a Global Leviathan can probably only take the form of an authoritative oligarchy of main powers, contrary to from the dreams of the authors.

To make a real contribution of at least some historic significance, the author needs a good dose of "subtraction" (to use a favorite term of the book) from the ideological traps in which this book is caught.

Professor Yehezkel Dror
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
msdror@mscc.huji.ac.il

Mao said, the revolution is not a dinner party, and along the way horrible things may happen, Zizek here reclaims, or claims again(resurgence) the demise of thinking through the paradigm of change, it is not so much a matter of what has gone wrong but seeing one's mistakes, failing and going on- at it again, he likes Beckett's apt phrase, of Fail and fail again,we are human failure is part of what we do, nature somehow missed this, for now we may create ourselves out of existence with control over bio-political horizons, cloning,DNA research;software robotics;there is a chapter on this;UNBEHAGEN IN DER NATUR; but Zizek is getting good at writing, yes the entertainment factor is contained, he relies on sober analysis of the state of democracy and culture, exploitation,religion,hot spots the Right and the Left, the points of representation as the favelas, or the Zapatistas, Lulu in Brazil, the Left in Europe,Negri, Mao, Lenin, Critchley and Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, all become objects for contemplation on the objects of the state and transformations or lack thereof, the Cultural Revolution,(can collectives run the state?) all through the Lens of Lacan at times, or Hegel,certainly Marx; all well thought through; You come away with a real sense of knowing where things are within the globe, where greed resides,false hopes; "what should be done", and not done, the spectre of Walter Benjamin hovers here with the strain of Messianism, reclaiming the path to enlightenment and simple understanding, why revolutions failed is not so much the aim here as how to pick up the pieces once the Winter Palace was seized; perhaps Lenin believed in revolution but also that nothing happened in Soviet Russia; dual powere as well is great objects for discussion, as we find today, Zizek opts for a kind of nomadic resistence, create your own alternate spaces within capitalism, it is not going away, work within it, give concerts of political music in your friend's loft(don't publicize it) and invite your marxist friends(Freundshaft) with your stock broker friends as well;Deleuze as well makes an appearence herein, the "objects without a body",(OwaB)and(BwaO)sort of a Webern-ian mirror reversal on virtuality, the the spaces we like to inhabit, our comfort zones of contemplation and cognition;Zizek also follows quite well serious music, with a fascinating discussion on the "smoking gun" of Shostakovich, was he a committed socialist or not,with hundreds of thousands of dollars in production of the performances of his symphonies, I'd think the fundraising boards at USA orchestras should know. . . he is compared to Prokofiev,who was above all this dirty poltical stuff. . . great read . . .

This is one of Zizek's more clearly argued popular works. It is lighter on abstract concepts relative to his more "serious" books, though he also explains his terminology and core concepts (e.g. the Real) even less than usual. As expected, he is fond of using language and making claims which are superficially inflammatory (though in reality much less so if one considers the meaning and import of his terms). The work has some provocative points about various historical incarnations of Communism and popular revolution in general; most of the book is spent taking such looks at history and trying to recast events outside of mainstream ideology. It is entertaining, even if much of what he says isn't terribly important to the future, or even his own arguments. The only truly enduring argument is naturally Hegelian, mostly contained in the section "The Crisis in Determinate Negation." This is where he shines best, sticking to applying his view of Hegelian concepts (mostly determinate negation) to contemporary scholarship.

I am often perplexed by people who have an almost visceral dislike of Zizek, people who accuse him of intellectual charlatanism and often incoherence. There are, of course, elements of truth to their accusations: Zizek is rarely clear about his conceptual framework, he can make outlandish and sometimes self serving proclamations, and at times he will go into long discourses on topic he evidently knows little about. Yet Zizek himself would admit all of these mistakes. His true value only becomes evident after reading several of his books, when his attitude and framework becomes more clear. I don't think his goal is to answer all of the questions he apparently poses (but never promises to answer), but rather to simply create *some* dynamism on the intellectual Left. The summary lesson of this book is from Walter Benjamin, "Try again, fail again. Fail better." So it is with Zizek's work. In an age where the true Left is almost an empty shell, his work, however imperfect, can be very useful to those interested in revitalizing radical politics.

Over the recent past, Slavoj Zizek has attracted a kind of cult followership. Some devotees attend to each of his public appearances, consult all his interventions on the internet, and voraciously read each and every volume that he publishes at an amazing pace. For others, he is a proto-terrorist on the loose, and his brand mix of Freudism and Marxism sets back the intellectual clock to the worst hours of leftist dogmatism. For my part, although I am far from sharing Zizek's political orientation, I find reading the Slovenian social scientist a useful distraction from more conventional readings, as well as a useful mind-stretching exercise. Like many other readers, I read Zizek for fun.

But reading In Defense of Lost Causes made me think again about why I took to reading his works with a kind of compulsive frenzy. I can think of several reasons. First, there is the shock of provocation, the "can he really mean that?" feeling when you stumble across sentences like "We need to reinvent revolutionary terror", "Today the enemy is not called Empire or Capital. It is called Democracy" or "The problem with Hitler is that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not 'essential' enough", or again chapters titled "How Stalin Saved the Humanity of Man" or "Give the Dictatorship of the Proletariat a Chance!"

So my first impulse was to check out his politics, so as to determine whether he really meant what he wrote. In fact, it took me a while to see clearly through his political agenda, as the first work I read (The Parallax View) was not very explicit in that respect. But In Defense of Lost Causes presents a clear overview on where Zizek stands with respect to issues of democracy, revolutionary terror, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the New Left agenda, or the antiglobalization movement. And there is only one conclusion I could draw: when he writes something, he means it.

The second element that makes reading Zizek an addictive pastime is the broad array of his references, spanning from pop culture to classical philosophers like Kant, Hegel and Heidegger, or modern critical theorists like Badiou, Laclau, Negri, Mouffe or Deleuze. Readers who praise Zizek's references to pop culture, his ability to mix high-brow references to continental philosophers with astute commentaries of Hollywood productions, might be frustrated with this volume. Zizek has only one single chapter on popular movies and novels. But his analysis of the commonalities in Michael Crichton's novels (fear of women) or in Steven Spielberg dramas (the rebuilding of a family), or his disclosure of the subversive element in Zack Snider's 300 (the film can be viewed as an apology of resistance to US imperialism) are pure Zizek vintage.

Zizek also reveals himself as a classical music lover, revisiting the debate on whether Dmitri Shostakovitch was a faithful Soviet composer or a closet dissident, or comparing him to the fate of Sergei Prokofiev, the other great name of Soviet music, who had a more tormented relationship to the regime. Other passages include an in-depth analysis of Robert Schumann's Humoresque, a piano piece with the vocal line reduced to silence, or the hint that Beethoven implanted a subversive irony toward the ideal of universal brotherhood in his Ninth Symphony's Ode to Joy.

The third reason that makes me relish Zizek is because I share with him a cultural horizon that tends to get lost in the current intellectual debate. Zizek bears testimony to a time when conservative intellectuals could engage their radical brethren on a discussion about dialectic materialism or the subversive element in Freud's writings. Zizek refers to marxism and psychoanalysis because they are "not only theories about struggle, but theories which are themselves engaged in a struggle". Here struggle should not be understood solely in terms of politics and ideology, but as a struggle within the self, an inner strive that leads to a higher form of self-consciousness. This is why many among the best conservative intellectuals, and this also includes the neo-cons, were former marxists, or at least defined their thought in relation to marxism.

According to Zizek, we now live in a post-ideological world, not in the conventional sense that we are at least liberated from the burden of great ideological narratives, but in the more cynical sense that power no longer needs to legitimize its rule and now exposes itself naked. The search for profit, the debasement of any intellectual pursuit, the acknowledgement of the use of torture are now part of our political horizon. This situation satisfies him: what Zizek hates the most is the recuperation of subversive discourses by the powers that be, who treat radical theorists as "harmless gadflies who sting us and thus awaken us to the inconsistencies and imperfection of our democratic enterprise."

Zizek wants no part in this legitimation business. Neither harmless gadfly nor amusing pet, he would like to rekindle the flame of radicalism that burned out after the seventies. But as we know, history only repeats itself as farce.

Recycling truck just took my copy of this book away. Good riddance. Pedestrian thoughts disguised by a writing style that would make Hegel proud. Literary onanism at its best.

I was very happy with this book. It's great to see a prominent intellectual carrying the banner of psychoanalysis in this decade - it is much needed and quite illuminating. You almost, ALMOST tire of the pop culture references, but there is no question that Zizek is operating in the realm of 'the philosophy of pop' rather than pop philosophy. I found this to be a book of great substance and readability.

This book provides a good overview of the political philosophy underlying current thinking and past theories of centralized government control. I think it does a pretty good job of explaining the what and why of centralized government control. I do not agree with the idea that this form of government is good but it may come about unless the general population takes a more responsible position and attitude in its attempt to placate the desires for individual as apposed to general welfare.

While I have yet to finish my recently purchased copy I can say that to some extent, much of this is the same ol' Zizek mentioning Hegel at the top of the page and moving on to "The Break Up" with Jennifer Aniston and whats-his-face at the bottom (hooray pop and highbrow culture mixing, how superficially 'postmodern', etc.). But of course that is part of the tongue that is in the cheek while reading Zizek that is pleasurable, only here his overall argument remains compelling and insistent (as opposed to somewhat vague and sporadic in "The Parallax View") as he attempts to summon a spirit virile enough to advocate universal emancipation once again (i.e. "Think Globally, Act Globally).

While the book could take its time to weave its way through the halls of academia and other popular channels, I feel confident this tome caps a comforting wave of other newly-translated texts and memes entering Anglo-American discourse (namely, that of revolutionary terror and the actual pursuit of leftist power) from the likes of Verso, the ripples thereof to be seen in coming decades in a (one hopes) tidal wave of social action.

"Something" happens to to "the living dead": a mixing of "the death drive" with "the undead urge", causing a "compulsion to retreat". A "lamella" is subtracted from the "living being"
which therefore has to "tonalize" itself for "secret tolerance", which includes "post-modern
intolerance", a "cynical threat to freedom". An example would be an "absurd decision" outside of "the chain of reasons" like the "sincere hypocracy" of Anne Frank. No wonder
"fundamentalist sects" like "Scientology" and "Cristian Science" claim "objective science" is in agreement with them about "universal human rights".

We "as people" are "transposed" into "things". This "obscene content" relies on "social roles". 'I may be an American "gay" man, but a "real personality". If Im "gaming hyper-
space", well, "it's only a game"!' Thus a person can "stage perverse features" of his "symbolic identity" that he could never admit with any "real intersubjective contacts".