or is it just me

  • FUCKTHEPAINTUP [any]
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    the academic elite radicals are pretty much all Maoists, like Althusser and so on

    • EthicalHumanMeat [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Still seems like a strange choice for something so foundational. Like, I feel like most people reading it are just gonna be like, "Huh, I guess Mao sucked."

      • gammison [none/use name]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        Zizek doesn't really care. Even if the above comment on his facetious use of reactionary sources as jokes are true (and I think they are), they don't give a clue into what Zizek really believes. I also would not call Althusser a Maoist, or most academic radicals Maoists at all lol. Here's something that I think is zizek being closer to what he believes re: Mao, https://www.lacan.com/zizmaozedong.htm, though who knows really. Side note, the natural science references annoy me so much in that piece, really should not be used.

        edit: on further looking, I think what I linked is just an abridged version of the intro with some stuff missing, and I don't think the intro is being super facetious.

        • PzkM [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          That is what was mentioned earlier, it's just his introduction to On Practice and On Contradiction. I don't buy that he's using those sources in a facetious way, for instance he uses Jung Chang's book to make a real point about Mao's "instrumental attitude" towards people and "cosmic perspective". The link on lacan.com is missing citations that are in the book, and the content of some are omitted.