File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2004/postanarchism.0406, message 6


Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 01:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sureyyya Evren <sureyyyaevren-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Zizek on 'Anarchism'


 
I have written something about this interview with Zizek and the book it appeared in. The tricky point is, the editor of the book, wrote a reply, and tried to prove that Doug Henwood is not an orthodoxmarxist and generallly 'they' are not orth-marxists. and says the book is going to be translated to Turkish -probably by some orth-marxists of course 
-which is normal, there are so many of them trying to take their 'revenge' from anything 'post' by any means possible here...
this week, I have to write a reply-to-the-reply... 
link to the review I mentioned:
http://www.newformulation.org/4evren.htm

but the case is not closed for sure. zizek is considered as a radical intellectual and we feel like we will write more pieces related to his thoughts and attitudes. 
there is a kind of orth-panic room. (could David Fincher imagine this?) some marxist-modernists want to close themselves in some safe panic rooms in case of a postmodern-anarkist-structralist epidemic attack. both theoretically and practically, political neighborhood is no safe for them. and some left-marxist thinkers, who are aware of the danger, play the role of a vital weapon that should be kept in the panic room. Zizek is one of them, I believe. actually, may be there is such a quota, and some thinkers are needed to fill it. 
ưn our coming magazine Siyahi, we are planning to make special dossiers for each of them (and we also want to focus on how they are presented by Turkish marxists.) but I guess we will not start with Zizek -big fish for the first issue, so many books to read:). we plan to start with badiou (although he doesnt properly fit this definition, here some people want to see him like that) after Badiou then Zizek, then may be John halloway... 
any suggestions?
 
best
Sur
 

Richard Day <dayr-AT-post.queensu.ca> wrote:
All: I'm new to this list too, but have been increasingly bothered by 
Zizek lately, and feel a need to sound off. When I saw a version of 
this interview in Joel Schalit's anti-capitalism reader I was 
reminded of Engels's question: 'How these people propose to run a 
factory, operate a railway or setter a ship without having in the 
last resort one deciding will, without single management, they do not 
of course tell us' ('Versus the Anarchists" in the Tucker reader). I 
would have to accept Zizek's contention that he isn't bluffing -- 
he's just ill-informed! He probably doesn't know that Bakunin's 
model isn't the one most people are using today, nor is he aware of 
the 'tyranny of structurelessness' debates in US radical feminist 
circles a generation ago, and how that experience has helped to 
inform contemporary activist practices. His comments are depressing 
coming from someone who is as good a theorist as he is, and who 
claims to be plugged into radical struggles all over the world. I've 
got an article coming out in the journal Cultural Studies that, among 
other things, takes him to task for his lack of reflection regarding 
the influences of anarchism in contemporary radical social movements. 
Maybe he'll read it and change his mind ... or at least realize that 
he needs to look around a little bit more, see how people are 
organizing all manner of activities in ways that would astound Engels.
Richard
>[Apologies if this has already been discussed: I'm new in town, but mention
>of Zizek reminded me of these comments of his on the subject of
>'anarchism'...]
>
>"I am a Fighting Atheist: Interview with Slavoj Zizek"
>
>Interview by Doug Henwood, Intro by Charlie Bertsch
>Bad Subjects, Issue # 59 , February 2002
>
>[extract]
>
>http://eserver.org/bs/59/zizek.html
>
>"BS: In general, anarchism plays a big role in American radical politics and
>countercultures. Do you have any thoughts on this influence?
>
>Zizek: I certainly can understand where the appeal of anarchism lies. Even
>though I am quite aware of the contradictory and ambiguous nature of Marx's
>relationship with anarchism, Marx was right when he drew attention to how
>anarchists who preach "no state no power" in order to realize their goals
>usually form their own society which obeys the most authoritarian rules. My
>first problem with anarchism is always, "Yeah, I agree with your goals, but
>tell me how you are organized." For me, the tragedy of anarchism is that you
>end up having an authoritarian secret society trying to achieve anarchist
>goals. The second point is that I have problems with how anarchism is
>appropriate to today's problems. I think if anything, we need more global
>organization. I think that the left should disrupt this equation that more
>global organization means more totalitarian control."
>
>[snip]
>
>"BS: You describe the internal structure of anarchist groups as being
>authoritarian. Yet, the model popular with younger activists today is
>explicitly anti-hierarchical and consensus-oriented. Do you think there's
>something furtively authoritarian about such apparently freewheeling
>structures?
>
>Zizek: Absolutely. And I'm not bluffing here; I'm talking from personal
>experience. Maybe my experience is too narrow, but it's not limited to some
>mysterious Balkan region. I have contacts in England, France, Germany, and
>more - and all the time, beneath the mask of this consensus, there was one
>person accepted by some unwritten rules as the secret master. The
>totalitarianism was absolute in the sense that people pretended that they
>were equal, but they all obeyed him. The catch was that it was prohibited to
>state clearly that he was the boss. You had to fake some kind of equality.
>The real state of affairs couldn't be articulated. Which is why I'm deeply
>distrustful of this "let's just coordinate this in an egalitarian fashion."
>I'm more of a pessimist. In order to safeguard this equality, you have a
>more sinister figure of the master, who puts pressure on the others to
>safeguard the purity of the non-hierarchic principle. This is not just
>theory. I would be happy to hear of groups that are not caught in this
>strange dialectic."

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005