Zizek: seems like a nob

[Knotted]

So Zizek's criticism of the conflation of the party and the class is wrong, how and why?

Who is making the conflation? Not Lukacs.

What is wrong with Zizek's criticism? He states that the stance legitimises the party to exert dictatorial pressure over the working class as a form of education. This is absurd on the face of it - the party does not have dictatorial powers, the state has dictatorial powers and he has ignored Lenin's theory of the state.

Tell you what since you were insisting we look at the person and not their theories per se, lets consider Lukacs career, his role in the ruling Communist party and his inability to fully break with it in 1956, instead being forced out.

Go ahead, then.

 

[revol68]

Who is making the conflation? Not Lukacs.

What is wrong with Zizek's criticism? He states that the stance legitimises the party to exert dictatorial pressure over the working class as a form of education. This is absurd on the face of it - the party does not have dictatorial powers, the state has dictatorial powers and he has ignored Lenin's theory of the state.



Go ahead, then.

Jesus christ it's like arguing with someone from 1934.

And Zizek actually doesn't ignore Lenin's theory of state, as laid out in State and Revolution, rather he hails it as Lenin breaking from social democracy. This is why he has such a hard on for Lenin, overlooking of course that the working class forced Lenin's hand on the matter.

 

[articul8]

Zizek is clearly talking about people who use "spontaneity" as a justification for rejecting the form of the vanguard party, which Lukacs didn't do.

 

[Knotted]

And Zizek actually doesn't ignore Lenin's theory of state, as laid out in State and Revolution, rather he hails it as Lenin breaking from social democracy. This is why he has such a hard on for Lenin, overlooking of course that the working class forced Lenin's hand on the matter.

He ignores it in this essay, he discusses one doctrinal commitment visa vie the party and its alleged implications while ignoring other doctrinal commitments.

Read Lukacs - the idea that the party dictates to the class is completely alien.

The Russian Revolution clearly exposed the limitations of the West European organisations. Their impotence in the face of the spontaneous movements of the masses was clearly exposed on the issues of mass actions and the mass strike. A fatal blow was dealt to the opportunistic illusion implicit in the notion of the ‘organisational preparation’ for such actions. It was plainly demonstrated that such organisations always limp behind the real actions of the masses, and that they impede rather than further them, let alone lead them.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/ch08.htm

Lukacs's concern was that the party can become an impediment to the revolution. So it isn't actually unfair to say that Lukacs favoured an ideology of spontaneity as Zizek defines it.

 

[Pickman's model]

n


I meant degenerate in the sense that it was a "Marxist" philosophy that had regressed back much further than Marx methodologically speaking.

I don't think that's meaningful

 

[articul8]

I don't think that's meaningful

Why not? You are aware of the verb "to degenerate"?

 

[revol68]

I don't think that's meaningful

are you mental?

 

[revol68]

He ignores it in this essay, he discusses one doctrinal commitment visa vie the party and its alleged implications while ignoring other doctrinal commitments.

Read Lukacs - the idea that the party dictates to the class is completely alien.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/ch08.htm

Lukacs's concern was that the party can become an impediment to the revolution. So it isn't actually unfair to say that Lukacs favoured an ideology of spontaneity as Zizek defines it.

Oh for fucksake, Zizek's whole point is that the idea of young Lukacs being some kind of subjectivist against the objectivist orthodoxy of the 2nd international is false, that he was the flipside of this objectivism and so despite his radical reputation he still fell in behind the party and ultimately conflates the Party and class. So yes, superficially he seems like a break from crass objectivism but on closer reading it ends up the same. Something played out in his own political career.

It's like when Zizek argues that Habermas is actually more post modern thanthe post modernists, it's proven false by Habermas making claims that he isn't. It's a theoretical examination bringing out hidden/implicit assumptions.

You really need to go read one of Zizek's more substantial texts, then you might be able to engage in the discussion properly. Fuck knows, you might even produce a criticism of some substance.

 

[Knotted]

I know what Zizek's point is I just don't care about it. Since it relies on a false characterisation of Lukacs his point is moot.

 

[revol68]

I know what Zizek's point is I just don't care about it. Since it relies on a false characterisation of Lukacs his point is moot.

You do realise that every party hack in the world has always claimed that the Party is the instrument of the working class.

And Lukacs took office with the Party as state, so make of that what you will.

 

[Knotted]

You do realise that every party hack in the world has always claimed that the Party is the instrument of the working class.

And Lukacs took office with the Party as state, so make of that what you will.

Has every party hack claimed that the party is an impediment to the revolution? You do know that his writings on the subject were not popular in the party? You should read the 1967 preface. He describes his political development. He was coming from a left communist perspective towards a more Leninist perspective and eventually ending up as a Stalinist. His thoughts were not fixed and at the time of writing H&CC he was heavily influenced by Luxemburg and others such as Pannekoek. As I say part of what makes it interesting is not just where he stood but where he was coming from and where he was going. You are dodgy and weaving now - trying to make this into a discussion about the merits of H&CC. Zizek claims Lukacs rejected an "ideology of spontaneity" which at best gives a false impression and at worst is a flat out falsification. (It certainly isn't a characterisation of Lukacs really was as opposed to what he claimed he was - that's just you clutching at straws.) Zizek's treatment is not serious - he has pre-conceived ideas and fits the reality to them.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why not? You are aware of the verb "to degenerate"?

i am aware of a lot of things, but awareness of verbs doesn't add meaning where meaning is absent.

 

[articul8]

the meaning is there for all but an imbecile to see

 

[Pickman's model]

the meaning is there for all but an imbecile to see

I meant degenerate in the sense that it was a "Marxist" philosophy that had regressed back much further than Marx methodologically speaking.

perhaps you could explain the meaning you find so obvious in this post. go on, imagine i'm an imbecile and explain it simply.

 

[Pickman's model]

*taps watch*

 

[articul8]

Alright dear - unlike you I'm not on here 24/7

(little imagination necessary btw)

Those who held Marx to be the last word in philosophical modernity, and who regarded Hegel and the whole idealist tradition as outdated and superceded, actually missed what was most important in Marx and were left with a philosophy which returned to an earlier, Kantian epistemological problematic.

 

[Knotted]

Are you seriously suggesting that Stalinism was the result of a Kantian epistemological problematic?

 

[articul8]

No I doubt Stalin knew or cared about epistemology, Kantian or otherwise. But the crude notion of "materialist" determination that passed for Marxism effectively meant that the bureaucrats could consign philosophy as a whole to the sphere of bourgeois mystification. Much like you have tried to do.

 

[Knotted]

No I doubt Stalin knew or cared about epistemology, Kantian or otherwise. But the crude notion of "materialist" determination that passed for Marxism effectively meant that the bureaucrats could consign philosophy as a whole to the sphere of bourgeois mystification. Much like you have tried to do.

Just for revol68's education - the above is the amalgam. X is against us and Y is against us therefore X=Y.

 

[revol68]

Just for revol68's education - the above is the amalgam. X is against us and Y is against us therefore X=Y.

And if we swap x for articulate and y for revol68...

 

[Pickman's model]

Alright dear - unlike you I'm not on here 24/7

(little imagination necessary btw)

Those who held Marx to be the last word in philosophical modernity, and who regarded Hegel and the whole idealist tradition as outdated and superceded, actually missed what was most important in Marx and were left with a philosophy which returned to an earlier, Kantian epistemological problematic.

and what was most important in marx was...

 

[Knotted]

And if we swap x for articulate and y for revol68...

You are saying much the same thing as each other and even being slippery in similar ways. There are differences - you have this theory/practice distance which allows you to reject Zizek's politics while praising his theory and you are more critical of the Frankfurters. You have political differences with a8 while sharing similar philosophical interests - but that's because neither of you know how to draw political conclusions from any of this. You can waffle on about objectivity and subjectivity and how important it is to guard this waffle from vulgar materialism but where does that leave you? Anywhere you fancy. I think I said earlier - there is nothing challenging in Zizek, he won't change your outlook both you and a8 read Zizek to reaffirm what you already believe.

 

[revol68]

You seem to want some sort of theory that neatly and linearly leads toa set of definite politics, its almost cute, playing 2nd international dress up.

 

[articul8]

and what was most important in marx was...

OK, and amongst other things - that knowledge is not just passively imprinted onto consciousness as a reflection of "how things really are in reality" - sense is made and transformed actively, through a practical engagement with the world. That our alienation is not some natural condition but a product of our own activity, and as such capable of being reversed through recognition, awareness, self-consciousness etc...all key Hegelian notions that don't really figure for mechanical materialists.

 

[Pickman's model]

OK, and amongst other things - that knowledge is not just passively imprinted onto consciousness as a reflection of "how things really are in reality" - sense is made and transformed actively, through a practical engagement with the world. That our alienation is not some natural condition but a product of our own activity, and as such capable of being reversed through recognition, awareness, self-consciousness etc...all key Hegelian notions that don't really figure for mechanical materialists.

and where does kant come into all this?

 

[articul8]

You seem to want some sort of theory that neatly and linearly leads toa set of definite politics, its almost cute, playing 2nd international dress up.

He doesn't want any theory at all that isn't just a confirmation of what he's already decided anyway (and he doesn't want anyone challenging his assumptions about what advances the class struggle either). It's dogmatism pure and simple.

 

[revol68]

Also why is it seen as a failing of Zizeks that people from varying shades of the left can take something from his writings? David Harvey works with even less abstract stuff yet is respected by everyone from social democrats to anarchists.

 

[love detective]

OK, and amongst other things - that knowledge is not just passively imprinted onto consciousness as a reflection of "how things really are in reality" - sense is made and transformed actively, through a practical engagement with the world.

Sounds very Kantian to me

 

[articul8]

and where does kant come into all this?

For Kant there is a layer of meaning/sense/intelligibility that is given to things in themselves which is necessarily beyond our comprehension. For Hegel/Marx the apparent meaningfulness of "things in themselves" is a consequence of a subject/object dichotomy that has at its roots the alienation of the subject from its own self-possession, and which is therefore capable of being reclaimed at a higher stage of understanding.

 

[articul8]

Sounds very Kantian to me

Without Kant no Hegel. Hegel is not UnKantian or Anti-Kantian but post-Kantian.