Zizek: seems like a nob

[Knotted]

That is true within any subject, genre etc Sure you bust out marxist leninist terminology all the time under the assumption that those engaging with you have some grasp or shared understanding.

I could talk about some pretty obscure mathematics and very few people would understand, but those who did would not find it ambiguous. That's not true of philosophy. Philosophical jargon is highly ambiguous and is often used in different ways by different people. Even political jargon is less ambiguous.

Perhaps we should get back to Zizek and how you hold that he has no real concept of class struggle and replaces it instead with disembodied ideology and a general concern with "oppression".

I don't have any of my Zizek books with me at my ma's but I'm back home in Belfast tomo night so I'll provide some quotes to show that Zizek has a pretty good grasp on Marx, value, commodity fetishism and class struggle, certainly a much better one than yourself.

I don't think that was quite what I said. But go on.

 

[Knotted]

Alright, what's grinding my gears about Zizek's notion of class struggle is this quote from the Ticklish Subject:

From a truly radical Marxist perspective, although there is a link between 'working class' as a social group and 'proletariat' as the position of the militant fighting for universal Truth, the link is not a determining causal connection, and the two levels must be strictly distinguished: to be a 'proletarian' involves assuming a certain subjective stance (of class struggle destined to achieve the Redemption through Revolution) which, in principle, can be adopted by any individual - to put it in religious terms, irrespective of his (good) works, any individual can be 'touched by Grace' and interpellated as a proletarian subject. The line that separates the two opposing sides in the class struggle is therefore not 'objective', it is not the line separating two positive social groups, but ultimately radically subjective - it involves the position individuals assume towards the Truth-Event. Subjectivity and universalism are thus not only not exclusive, but two sides of the same coin: it is precisely because 'class struggle' interpellates individuals to adopt the subject stance of a 'proletarian' that its appeal is universal, aiming at everyone without exception.

Several comments:
1) Zizek is not just clarifying Marx and Marxism but elaborating a "truly radical Marxist" (whatever that means) stance.
2) This isn't the definition of "proletarian" in Marx. That's not a big deal but why is he reinventing terms - why can't he just talk about "partisans of the working class" or something?
3) Why all the religious stuff? (Zizek was talking about St Paul being a proto-Lenin in the previous paragraph!)
4) Even putting aside the obscurity of the term "Truth-Event", it's a classless term. The proletariat for Zizek is neither defined in terms of it's economic position nor ultimately in terms of class struggle! There is then this bit where class struggle is important for "interpellating" individuals to adopt the stance of the proletariat - but I have to ask what else might interpellate people into proletarians?What concretely is going on here? What is the actual link Zizek talks about between the working class and the proletariat? Class struggle makes its appearance in the abstract.
5) Radical subjectivity. Is this profound and provocative or is he really just saying that people have their own "subjective" politics. In what sense is that 'radical'? In any case where does this leave the "objective" working class?
6) "Fighting for universal Truth". Is that the ultimate goal or is it a necessary goal. This is just bizarre.
7) He writes really badly.

I'm inclined to take this very general way of talking to mean that he is revising Marxist concepts and reinterpreting them for contemporary times. To understand him I have to see how he applies all this - which is why I find it utterly bizarre that revol68 wants to separate his theory from his political conclusions. What is his theory here? This generalised way of talking seems designed to be filled with any content you fancy. Do I have the patience to nail the jelly to the ceiling? Is it possible to do so?

 

[revol68]

jesus, it's all already there in Marx's distinction between a class for itself and a class in itself. He's saying that the proletariat in the Marxist sense isn't simply an objective sociological group but involves a subjective political stance, that of seeing itself as the negation of capital. It's him rejecting the obvious falseness of objectivist marxism that see's the class struggle simply flow from an objective social position but instead makes clear the need for a subjectivity, a site of conflict which isn't just a crude reflection of the "base".

It's also a restatement of universalism through subjectivity, that is that the proletariat is the universal class but only in so much as it represents the negation of all classes. The religious stuff isn't odd, Zizek is hardly the first person to understand communism as a materialist redemption, which again isn't odd considering Marx's relationship with Hegel. Christianity is universal in that is open to all, not just the chosen people, it is a religion for jew and gentile, all it requires is fidelity to Christ, a belief in the Resurrection.

it's a rejection of understanding the working class as just another social group, another interest to be represented by the likes of that Owen's. The proletariat is not a positive identity, it is a negative one, based on it's antagonism to capitalism. Without this subjective position, it becomes just another class fighting for it's interests within society rather than one that can explode it's foundations.

Sure some of his language is flowery but hey I quite like it and he is giving the likes of Laclau and Mouffe a good kicking.

As to where it leaves the objective working class, well in the same place it always was, stuck within the logic of capital until it comes to understand itself as a revolutionary class, which isn't an automatic process brought about through class struggle, rather struggle is also dependent on taking certain subjective positions.

 

[revol68]

also when he says truly radical Marxist perspective, he is clearly distinguishing it from the crude Marxism which fetishes the working class in itself, that celebrates good working class values like the work ethic etc

All of this is fitting with his criticisms of Lukacs etc

p.s. you should read all of The Ticklish Subject, not just mine it for quotes, it's probably his best work.

 

[revol68]

and yes I'm very aware this whole thread is a load of foppish waffle but then that's the case with all this pish.

 

[Knotted]

also when he says truly radical Marxist perspective, he is clearly distinguishing it from the crude Marxism which fetishes the working class in itself, that celebrates good working class values like the work ethic etc

He's giving his own view and attributing it to Marx - he's being slippery. He wants to revise Marx while at the same time appearing to be orthodox. You should read Marx sometime. By the way you have succeeded in Kantianising Marx (does this mean you are now a Stalinist?). Marx NEVER makes the distinction between class in itself and class for itself. Here's Marx:

Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into workers. The combination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass is thus already a class as against capital, but not yet for itself. In the struggle, of which we have noted only a few phases, this mass becomes united, and constitutes itself as a class for itself. The interests it defends become class interests. But the struggle of class against class is a political struggle.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02e.htm

There is no concept of class in itself for Marx. Besides this passage is very different from Zizek's passage - Zizek's "proletariat" does not necessarily have anything to do with the working class at all! And it shouldn't need saying that there aren't any of these quasi-religious phrases in Marx.

Besides this objectivist/subjectivist stuff misses the point. The subject is an object and the object is a subject. Zizek is not criticising 2nd International type Marxism - he does not go beyond Plekhanov who was quite capable of criticising the "objectivism" of 18th century (predominantly French) materialist thought.

 

[Knotted]

it's a rejection of understanding the working class as just another social group, another interest to be represented by the likes of that Owen's. The proletariat is not a positive identity, it is a negative one, based on it's antagonism to capitalism. Without this subjective position, it becomes just another class fighting for it's interests within society rather than one that can explode it's foundations.

This is all fine - perfectly ordinary Marxism. Even 2nd International types and Stalinists would say the above. The only thing that is different is this idea that the working class are thus in a subjective position. There is nothing particularly subjective about it. Every class is in a subjective position. The ruling class is subjective (and also universalist most of the time). Zizek doesn't contrast class outlooks but political outlooks - he contrasts communism with Nazism.

 

[articul8]

it shouldn't need saying that there aren't any of these quasi-religious phrases in Marx.

Like the commodity "abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties" or having a "mysterious" or "mystical" character?(Capital Ch4)

 

[Knotted]

Like the commodity "abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties" or having a "mysterious" or "mystical" character?(Capital Ch4)

That's ironic! Unless your name is Phil Dwyer...

 

[butchersapron]

Like the commodity "abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties" or having a "mysterious" or "mystical" character?(Capital Ch4)

Chapter 1.

 

[articul8]

yep OK, Ch1, section 4

 

[butchersapron]

yep OK, Ch1, section 4

Have you got round to reading it yet?

 

[articul8]

I'd read that section already I really should tackle the whole thing .

 

[butchersapron]

I'd read that section already I really should tackle the whole thing .

Yes, I too reckon that you should probably read that and plenty of other stuff marx wrote.

 

[articul8]

Apart from the late anthropological notebooks I'm not sure how much other stuff I'm missing...not read the Grundrisse in full....other than that...?

 

[love detective]

so you've pretty much read all of Marx apart from the Anthropological notebooks, Capital/TSV and the Grundrisse

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No - Hegel showed that when something appeared "unknowable" or inherently external/objective, what was at stake was a fundamental alienation/disavowal of something previously intimately known to/by the subject. Kant leaves open the idea of a knowing subject in a universe that it can never get to know adequately. Hegel posits objectivity as always already given to the subject and therefore potentially recoverable.

Can't comment on much of this thread, but I can comment on this, I think.

You have a slightly erroneous story in your head that Kant discovered X, Hegel improved on it, Marx took Hegel on, etc.

This is a 'standing on the shoulders of giants' approach that fits well with the natural sciences, but less well with epistemology, I think. And I don't think it applies here. To my thinking, your first sentence sums up something that Hegel got wrong, or at least that Hegel's followers seem to get wrong. I'm going to be a little rude here and suggest that you yourself have no idea what you mean when you say 'a fundamental alienation/disavowal of something previously intimately known to/by the subject'. Strictly speaking, I would say that Kant is right, and Hegel overextends himself in an attempt to prove the knowability of something unknowable. Now of course, we take certain things to be true in order to make progress, in order to allow us to think about things. Otherwise we just slip into empty solipsism, but that doesn't mean that we have to lie to ourselves about what it is that we are doing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Can't comment on much of this thread, but I can comment on this, I think.

You have a slightly erroneous story in your head that Kant discovered X, Hegel improved on it, Marx took Hegel on, etc.

This is a 'standing on the shoulders of giants' approach that fits well with the natural sciences, but less well with epistemology, I think. And I don't think it applies here. To my thinking, your first sentence sums up something that Hegel got wrong, or at least that Hegel's followers seem to get wrong. I'm going to be a little rude here and suggest that you yourself have no idea what you mean when you say 'a fundamental alienation/disavowal of something previously intimately known to/by the subject'. Strictly speaking, I would say that Kant is right, and Hegel overextends himself in an attempt to prove the knowability of something unknowable. Now of course, we take certain things to be true in order to make progress, in order to allow us to think about things. Otherwise we just slip into empty solipsism, but that doesn't mean that we have to lie to ourselves about what it is that we are doing.

yeh, this is what i meant here

you seem to think that there's an evolution, that 'if kant, then hegel; if hegel, then marx'. that this was a necessary and teleological series of events. but it wasn't. and it's a nonsense to say that degenerate marxism, whatever that may be, reverts back down the path of influence from marx to kant skipping hegel. perhaps you don't like the way i phrased myself. but your agreeing with articul8 seems to me agreeing with a fool: not that it's to me any surprise that you'd harness yourself to a foolish argument.

although i must say lbj's put it rather better

 

[articul8]

I'm going to be a little rude here and suggest that you yourself have no idea what you mean when you say 'a fundamental alienation/disavowal of something previously intimately known to/by the subject'.

I know exactly what I mean - and this is precisely where Hegel meets Freud/Lacan - on the terrain of something that the subject projects into the "external" world as something alien, objectified. That "we lie to ourselves" about what we are doing when we divide the world up between the knowable and the unknowable is precisely the point from a psychoanalytical point of view.

 

[articul8]

Hegel had to go through and beyond Kant. And Marx is clearly responding to a Hegelian framework. What is objectionable here?

 

[articul8]

so you've pretty much read all of Marx apart from the Anthropological notebooks, Capital/TSV and the Grundrisse

I don't know - there's probably untranslated ephemera, his doctoral thesis, some of his journalism no doubt...

 

[Knotted]

I too think it's wrong to see Hegel as post-Kantian (it's better to see Hegel as post-Spinozan in my opinion) and Marx as post-Hegelian. The differences in each case are greater than the similarities.

Anyway here's Hegel on Critical Theory (basically Kant and post-Kantian philosophy including Fichte and Schelling):
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_iv.htm
This will be difficult reading if you are not familiar with Hegel's terminology but there are links throughout the text. One thing I should note is that Hegel is less technical than Kant and this may seem unsatisfying - Hegel doesn't really tackle the problems Kant was dealing with but rather places Kant at a stage of development in the history of philosophpy.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't know - there's probably untranslated ephemera, his doctoral thesis, some of his journalism no doubt...

using this handy index http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm why don't you tell us what you haven't read: or, if it's shorter, what you have read

 

[Pickman's model]

I too think it's wrong to see Hegel as post-Kantian (it's better to see Hegel as post-Spinozan in my opinion) and Marx as post-Hegelian. The differences in each case are greater than the similarities.

Anyway here's Hegel on Critical Theory (basically Kant and post-Kantian philosophy including Fichte and Schelling):
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_iv.htm
This will be difficult reading if you are not familiar with Hegel's terminology but there are links throughout the text. One thing I should note is that Hegel is less technical than Kant and this may seem unsatisfying - Hegel doesn't really tackle the problems Kant was dealing with but rather places Kant at a stage of development in the history of philosophpy.

oh but hegel was post-kant and pre-marxian and therefore a step up from kant and a step down from marx

 

[articul8]

it's wrong to see Hegel as post-Kantian

I don't understand on what basis. Hegel isn't neo-Kantian, but is quite clearly post-Kantian (not only in chronological terms but also in terms of his argument). Hegel doesn't seek to answer Kantian problems, he demonstrates the aporetic nature of the way he frames the questions...

 

[articul8]

oh but hegel was post-kant and pre-marxian and therefore a step up from kant and a step down from marx

I've explicitly rejected that approach - Kant's contribution was enormous, without Kant no Hegel (IMV). Without Hegel no Marx.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've explicitly rejected that approach - Kant's contribution was enormous, without Kant no Hegel (IMV). Without Hegel no Marx.

I don't understand on what basis. Hegel isn't neo-Kantian, but is quite clearly post-Kantian (not only in chronological terms but also in terms of his argument). Hegel doesn't seek to answer Kantian problems, he demonstrates the aporetic nature of the way he frames the questions...

are you sure you've rejected that approach?

 

[articul8]

using this handy index http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm why don't you tell us what you haven't read: or, if it's shorter, what you have read

there's rather a lot I haven't read - but I have read most of the major historical/philosophical works but not too much of the political economy. It's something I intend to address.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't know - there's probably untranslated ephemera, his doctoral thesis, some of his journalism no doubt...

You mean the 37 huge volumes of his collected work, minus 15 or so of correspondence published so far with material for another 120 volumes? Come on, you're not some teenage trot.

 

[Pickman's model]

there's rather a lot I haven't read - but I have read most of the major historical/philosophical works but not too much of the political economy. It's something I intend to address.

what about the mathematical manuscripts?