Violence, Capitalism, and a Shout-out for Slavoj Žižek

 From The Article: Violence: the opium of the intellectuals by Rainer Zitelmann.

And the justification of violence and terror, as long as it is directed against capitalism, continues to this day. Slavoj Žižek, one of the most prominent left-wing intellectuals of our time, argues for a “new communism” in his 2021 book A Left That Dares Speak Its Name: “What we need today,” he writes, “is a Left that dares to speak its name, not a Left that shamefully covers its core with some cultural fig leaf. And this name is communism.” The Left, he argues, should finally abandon the socialist dream of a more equitable and “just” capitalism and enact more radical “communist measures.” As a clearly formulated goal, he proposes that “the opposing class has to be destroyed.”

According to Žižek, Mao’s Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s – the greatest socialist experiment in human history – presented an opportunity to “bypass socialism and directly enter communism.” Unfortunately, many people do not know anything about Mao’s Great Leap Forward. But the historian Frank Dikötter offers the following assessment: at least 45 million people died unnecessary deaths as a result of this grand socialist experiment between 1958 and 1962. The majority died of starvation, while another 2.5 million were tortured or beaten to death – deliberately deprived of food and starved to death. “People were killed selectively because they were rich, because they dragged their feet, because they spoke out or simply because they were not liked, for whatever reason, by the man who wielded the ladle in the canteen,” Dikötter explains. And it is precisely this “Great Leap Forward” that Žižek extols so euphorically.

In an article in The New York Review under the title “The Violent Visions of Slavoj Žižek,” you can see which photo hangs over Žižek’s bed. It is that of the mass murderer Joseph Stalin.

 I have read two of Žižek's books. It was in prison. I wondered if his Stalinism might be a performative provocation. Perhaps it is not performative, but he intends to be provocative. He should be considered, not merely rejected as anti-capitalist. 

Capitalism is not the Nicene Creed, it is not above reproach, criticism, or reform. The real question is not whether Žižek is anti-capitalist, but whether his criticisms of capitalism are valid.

As for violence, I find it always interesting those who have never been in a physical altercation (or a war) are quick to advocate a physical altercation (or war) for others.

For an actual encounter with Žižek:

sch 11/18