Act or Revolution? Yes, Please!

Abstract

In the context of the current crisis of global capitalism, it is crucial to determine what is the state of Marxism. Certainly, it is true that in recent decades Marxism has suffered a notable series of attacks, but in no way may we conclude that for this reason Marxism no longer constitutes a legitimate political and intellectual option. As Perry Anderson fittingly pointed out, “to be defeated and to be bowed are not the same” (Anderson 2005: XVII). In permanent crisis and despite all adversities—Marxism persists. Thus, adopting the standpoint of an “intransigent realism” (Anderson 2000: 10) which makes possible “refusing any accommodation with the ruling system, and rejecting every piety and euphemism that would understate its power” (idem), it is valid to question if Marxism has theoretically and practically recovered from a crisis that was supposedly fatal. In fact, has Marxism been able to respond to the challenges posed by Post-Structuralism and 2 Postmodernist discourse? Has it repelled the attacks that were inherent in the postulates of the so-called Post-Marxism? As a part of a larger effort to answer these questions, this paper deals with the work of Slavoj Žižek. What distinguishes the Slovenian philosopher from other contemporary thinkers that try to normatively undertake a defense of Marxism is that he is not precisely a Marxist. Essentially, Žižek is part of the Lacanian left (Stravrakakis 2007). But at the same time he is a very distinctive Hegelian that belongs to the field of Materialist Theory of Subjectivity (Johnston 2008). Nevertheless, in recent years Žižek has showed increasing fidelity to the Idea of communism and the radical emancipatory politics. Within this context, he has strayed from his previous interests in the development of ideology critique and has carried out a noteworthy number of original contributions to both the vicissitudes of Marxist theory and the political practice that the times in which we live require.