[Marxism] Zizek interview in the FT

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Sat Mar 7 10:23:44 MST 2009

You can read it however you like, but he says what he says.  You don't know 
history, don't read maps, apparently you don't read what Zizek actually 

":What we often fail to understand, he argues, is how Stalinism was a
counter-revolution, reacting against the extreme "post-human" utopian
ambitions that were championed by Bolshevik leaders in the 1920s.
Communist extremists predicted the day when workers would live in a
perfect society with no need for emotions, or even names, and all
sexuality and family life would be suppressed. But Stalin was far more
conservative, reacting against experimental art and insisting on the
sanctity of family life. "Stalinism reacted against these negative
dystopias that were even more terrifying. Stalinism was, in that sense,
a return to normal life. People forget that"

So tell me, how does this banality, this total trivialization of the actual 
social forces, the class forces that push, pulled, distorted, deformed, 
destroyed-- that spelled out actual revolution and counterrevolution, the 
kind that uses militias, guns, repression etc.-- how does this crap from 
Zizek differ from the banalities about Hitler representing a reaction 
against the decadence, the sexual liberation of the Weimar years?  From the 
banalities that Kinder, Kuche, Kirche appealed to the German "personality"?

Garbage in is garbage out.

I apologize to the list.  I forgot myself and actually thought Fruitless 
might be doing something more for trolling.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ruthless Critic of All that Exists" <ok.president+nbsy at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Zizek interview in the FT

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM, S. Artesian <sartesian at earthlink.net> 

More information about the Marxism mailing list