God may be dead but Žižek certainly isn't. ( )

It is always commendable when an author makes it clear right from the start what he/she stands for. In the case of Slavoj Zizek, of course, his reputation precedes him, but that does not prevent him from immediately propagating his communist convictions. This book was published in 2009, ie during the severe financial crisis that shook the entire globalized economy to its foundations. Zizek's analysis of the direct causes of that crisis - the too far-reaching liberalization of the financial world in particular - certainly remains valid, more than 10 years later. But he connects this with the older anti-capitalist discourse, and sees in that crisis a sweet-tasting revenge for the debacle of 1989-1990: “The moral of the story: the time for liberal-democratic moralistic blackmail is over. Our side no longer has to go on apologizing; while the other side had better start soon.” Our side obviously is that of the radical left. Not just any left, of course, in typical Leninist tradition Zizek knocks at least as hard on the socialists and social democrats as the hypocritical liberal democracies themselves.

There are, of course, a number of points where Zizek's polemical views make sense. He rightly emphasizes, for example, the power of ideologies, both positive and negative, and that any economy or state building always is the result of political choices, although on this he seems to follow Jacques Lacan rather than Michel Foucault. And he also rightfully points to the creative capacity of capitalism to constantly adapt to changing circumstances, although he sees this more as a perversion (a tragedy turned farce) than as an opportunity. Finally, there’s no question that the core drive of pure capitalism, namely maximizing profits, has a number of structurally destructive consequences, both for on the individual, the collective and the ecological level.

Zizek is a polemicist and both his points of analysis and his outbursts follow each other in rapid succession. Sometimes he shoots in all directions, and sometimes he goes sideways in an almost inscrutable jargon reminiscent of the best days of Marxism. It is also typical that he does not seem to be selling any real alternative to all of this, at most an ecologically reformed form of the familiar communism. The self-assured and sometimes downright arrogant tone seems to me to be an extra argument for taking this writer off his pedestal. And for those who need one more, this quote seems sufficient enough: “communism is to be opposed to socialism, which, in place of the egalitarian collective, offers an organic community (Nazism was national socialism, not national communism). In other words, while there may be a socialist anti-Semitism, there cannot be a communist form. (If it appears otherwise, as in Stalin's last years, it is only as an indicator of a lack of fidelity to the revolutionary event).” For me, this statement was enough to definitely slam the door. ( )

This book has very little to do with its description on the back cover. Its more of a bucket of musings than a straightforward argument. I gather that this is typical of Žižek's stuff. None of this is meant as negative criticism. This text would not have the power it does with a more conventional form. Though I occasionally got lost somewhere between psychoanalysis and Various Capitalized Words And Phrases That Do Not Mean What You Think, the core argument of the book was made powerfully, through an accretion of examples and analysis. That argument is a provocative one: that Left wing politics must not be afraid to hold on to the communist idea, and must act accordingly. A corollary to this is that it is the liberal idea of eternal capitalist democracy that is utopian and not inevitable.

These words mean what you think they do: Read This Book ( )

We are forced to live as if we were free. -- John Gray

First as Tragedy, Then as Farce is my favorite work yet by Žižek. Despite its many passages being recycled in later works, there is a clarity here which moved me. The specific grasp was Žižek's viewing the newly inaugurated President Obama. Certainly the philosopher fears a hegemon with a human face, he rightly critiques the vaunted 2009 speech in Cairo. The philosopher then betrays himself as a sentimentalist by comparing the 2008 Obama victory with the 1791-1804 Haitian Revolution. Hegel and the rest of the Enlightenment were all about the concept of liberation from slavery, except where actual slaves were involved. That simply didn't enter the equation. Thus when French peacekeepers arrived to find natives singing La Marseillaise , there was a historic realization: these black people might be more French than we are. Such is the drenched weight of ideology.

( )

Reviewed in the February 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard:

http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2010/02/first-as-tragedy-then-as-fa...