Zizek, Revolution, and Violence
 Zizek, Revolution, and Violence | |
|
thewatcher
PF Addict Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 19, 2009 Total Topics: 63 Total Posts: 1972 |
 #1
Subject: Zizek, Revolution, and Violence For those among you who are students or scholars of totalitarianism, I would heartily recommend this particular work on the subject by Zizek. In it, we find a particular interesting passage: Zizek wrote: However, what one is tempted to add here is that, in the very case of Nazism (and Fascism in general), the constellation of violence is rather the opposite one: crazy, tasteless even, as it may sound, the problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not “essential” enough. Nazism was not radical enough, it did not dare to disturb the basic structure of the modern capitalist social space (which is why it had to invent and focus on destroying an external enemy, Jews). This is why one should oppose the fascination with Hitler according to which Hitler was, of course, a bad guy, responsible for the death of millions – but he definitely had balls, he pursued with iron will what he wanted… This point is not only ethically repulsive, but simply wrong: no, Hitler did not “have the balls” to really change things; he did not really act, all his actions were fundamentally reactions, i.e., he acted so that nothing would really change, he stages a big spectacle of Revolution so that the capitalist order could survive. If one really wants to name an act which was truly daring, for which one truly had to “have the balls” to try the impossible, but which was simultaneously a horrible act, an act causing suffering beyond comprehension, it was Stalin’s forced collectivization at the end of 1920s in the Soviet Union – but even here, the same reproach holds: the paradox of the 1928 »Stalinist revolution« was rather that, in all its brutal radicality, it was not radical enough in effectively transforming the social substance. Its brutal destructiveness has to be read as an impotent passage a l'acte. Far from simply standing for a total forcing of the unnamable Real on behalf of the Truth, the Stalinist “totalitarianism“ rather designates the attitude of absolutely ruthless “pragmatism,” of manipulating and sacrificing all “principles” on behalf of maintaining power. What are we to make of this passage? Is violence truly a necessary part of the overturning of capitalism (and/or metaphysics/the western narrative)? If so, what sort of violence? Should we take Zizek to be literally suggesting that purges and the like are, in fact, a necessary part of destroying the institutional and symbolic basis upon which the system operates? Or can merely a sort of symbolic violence suffice? If the latter, what would this symbolic violence look like? Is Zizek himself truly engaged in a sort of social/symbolic Stalinist purge of his own by way of precisely such violent gestures as uncovering the lost virtue of totalitarianism and revolutionary violence (no less than in his uncovering of the "perverse core of Christianity")? Edited by thewatcher on 06/10/10 - 8:40 AM |
|
BitterCrank
PF Addict  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 01, 2008 Location: Minneapolis Total Topics: 101 Total Posts: 5251 |
#2
Whether violence is required to achieve revolution depends on the resources available. The American socialist Daniel DeLeon thought that American democratic traditions and legal framework allowed for a peaceful takeover and abolition of the capitalist system. His proposed route was massive industrial unionism (unions operating across trades), education of the working class, and use of the ballot box. An educated, organized, and prepared working class (which comprises an overwhelming majority of the population now) could vote in socialists. This wouldn't happen in one fell swoop and it wouldn't happen by election alone. Organized workers would back up their vote with the strike (and not strikes against this or that employer, but a general strike -- bringing production to a halt). Western Europe, Japan, the United States, and some other countries have the machinery in place to achieve peaceful revolution. Would there be no military or police activity? Some, possibly, but the police or the military would not be able to 'make' the economy move if the workers refused. As power was achieved, the repressive institutions of the state would be dismantled. This wouldn't happen all at once either, and it is possible that the old regime and the military might attempt a coup de etat -- but this would be more difficult in DeLeon's highly decentralized system of worker management. The final act of the revolution would be the resignation of the legislatures and congress. Government would be then be in the hands of workers who would determine how the the productive capacity of the country was to be was to be utilized, and for what ends. Edited by BitterCrank on 06/10/10 - 9:22 AM |
|
thewatcher
PF Addict Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 19, 2009 Total Topics: 63 Total Posts: 1972 |
#3
Fascinating. Could you recommend any reading material along these lines? I would love to learn more. |
|
StreetlightX
Think!  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jun 13, 2010 Location: Sub specie aeternitatis Total Topics: 36 Total Posts: 2270 |
#4
A few points: The violence Zizek talks about isn't exactly what is usually understood as 'violence'. More specifically, he advocates what might be called (imo) the violence of the (Lacanian) Real. That is, if the Real is defined as the "what resists symbolization absolutely", a (properly ethical) Act, is not one that happens within symbolic confines, but restructures the entire symbolic space itself by breaking it down. That is, the violence of the Act consists not in choosing between two options, but in breaking out completely from having to choose, to show how any choice is a 'false choice'. This sort of violence does not I think necessarily need to be 'actual', 'physical' violence, but neither does it preclude it. One of Zizek's favorite examples is of "Bartleby", whom, when given a choice, simply says 'no'. He chooses not to choose. Or, another one he likes is the Marx brother reply to the question "one lump or two?" - "Yes please!". These sort of absurd examples break down the symbolic confines of the questions initially posed: they make no sense because they are Real, violent answers. But then again, Zizek also likes to use 9/11 as an example of the Real at work, which means that Real violence also can have a physical, hurt-people aspect to it as well. Another thing to note is that for Zizek, the question of violence is bound up very strongly with the question of responsibility (In the Heideggerian/Kierkegaardian sense). Hence the Hitler example: Hitler did not, in fact take responsibility for the failures Germany - he blamed it on the Jews, the object petit a which had to be eliminated for Germany to be 'restored'. A truly (Real) violent Act would have accepted that 'no, the Jews are not to blame' and that 'I must take responsibility for this mess, and only I can Act to change it'. Or, to put it Lacanise, the only way to 'traverse the fantasy' is to realize that 'there is no big Other' for whom this mess is responsible. The relationship here between violence and responsibility is that a Real violent Act would be self inflicting: it requires a sort of evacuation of the subject, a breaking of the fantasy that sustains the idea that the symbolic space can be rendered harmonious, of accepting and working with, rather than against the irreducible hard kernel of antagonism that cuts through all symbolic space. In short: no, purges and the like are not necessary, but he does not foreclose the option. I'm alot more interested in Zizek's views of ontology and subjectivity, but this is mostly what I understand from his politics. Edited by StreetlightX on 06/13/10 - 9:03 AM |
|
thewatcher
PF Addict Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 19, 2009 Total Topics: 63 Total Posts: 1972 |
#5
@Streetlightx, Thank you for the insight and welcome to the forums. My exposure to Zizek is still fairly limited and it is nice to be able to put the passage at issue into some sort of relationship with his broader work. |
|
StreetlightX
Think! Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jun 13, 2010 Location: Sub specie aeternitatis Total Topics: 36 Total Posts: 2270 |
#6
's all good, Zizek is one of my go-to philosophers whom I've tried very hard to get familiar with, so hit me up if you have any questions or anything. |
|
thewatcher
PF Addict Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 19, 2009 Total Topics: 63 Total Posts: 1972 |
#7
For anyone still interested, the latest issue of Zizek Studies is filled with articles that offer fascinating perspectives into the question at issue in the OP. It can be found here. Enjoy! |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.