Re: [Marxism] Zizek interview in the FT

["S. Artesian" <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No it's not unfair, Zizek is making, or attempting to make an historical 
analysis, not a cultural analysis.  He is not even making a pseudo-Weberian 
statement about the interplay of history and culture, history and ideology. 
He is attributing  Stalin's assumption of historical power to a view on the 
family, to some sort of innate, immutable cultural conservatism.  What total 
crap.

This is like, no not like, it is exactly the same thing as attributing 
Reagan's election and presidential power to his trumpeting of "family 
values"--- had nothing to do with the economic reality, rather served as an 
ideological smokescreen to cover what Reagan actually did to real families--  
real working class families-- causing them to split up to find work in 
different locations, increasing strains geometrically through imposed 
unemployment and reduced wage rates.

All previous history is not the history of sentimentalities.

Not just fish in the barrel you're shooting when shooting at Zizek, it's 
carp.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ruthless Critic of All that Exists" <ok.president+nbsy@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Zizek interview in the FT


On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/06b42e32-09dd-11de-add8-0000779fd2ac.html
This is unfair...he is a cultural theorist, so he focuses on culture.
Are you also going to criticize Gindin or Panitch on the basis that
they "only talk about economics"?

I don't think Zizek ever said that *only* culture matters. Where is he
saying that in the above passage?


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu