Now first things first: If you want a concise, detailed analysis of the horrors of the noughties and the present financial crisis- from the far left or from any perspective for that matter- it isn't here. It's as if Zizek has himself carefully learned the advertising sound bite techniques of the corporate system he so opposes, and in its title and preface, unashamedly applied it in order to grab people's attention.
That's admittedly a cheap shot, but one can't help [guiltily] wishing he'd applied the same maxim to its content,which too often reads as a stream of consciousness with twists and turns that are, frankly, largely impenetrable. Essentially what we get, is half a book trying to prove in ever decreasing circles that capitalism is indeed an ideology [although `it' believes and acts as though it's not], and the latter half as a communist manifesto for far left 'regeneration,' but which fails - unfortunately- to develop into a practical prescription.
Personally, I have now been around the block too many times to be impressed by semantics that may thrill political scientists and philosophy buffs, but are generally too convoluted and- as such- rendered meaningless to the wider public. His concept of capitalist ideology being an ideology precisely because it denies itself to be an ideology smacks too much of philosophical gymnastics to me, written more to impress fellow intellectuals partaking of university town chi-chi dinner parties, than a head on take of the mess the world is presently in. Basically, much of the first half [with some relapses in the second] amounts at times to philosophical arguments about how black the colour of white is. Clever, but one is put in mind of Reggie Perrin's boss CJ when he said: `Thinking? I didn't get to where I am today by thinking; thinking never got the washing up done.'
Zizek is not alone in this failing, but too many on the intellectual left forget that concise and clear thought does not necessarily mean dumbing down; within simplicity of expression can lay a wide audience and this is the sort of impact we need these days for the left to be effective again.
But onto detail: his antagonism towards socialism- who he sees as an enemy of communism- is unhelpful but not unexpected from his extremist political stand point. It's another example of what the Left has always been crippled by- an inherent obsession with arguing with itself, and eventually splintering through it. Zizek is doing this already, even before the whole left wing movement has found its feet and a coherent voice again, and perhaps, lies in the fact that his position on the extreme left is possibly closer to the extremes of corporate capitalism than he dare admit.
Zizek hits the target though a number of times. For example his integration of the differing concepts of circular and linear time into a political paradigm is intriguing, and the idea of the future being affected by standing back and assumed it has already happened as a worst case scenario, and then doing something about it in the present, is a terrific way of explaining the need for contemporary action and not falling into the trap of fatalism and/or navel-gazing.
His too brief thoughts on how China's Cultural Revolution laid the groundwork for its present success with authoritarian capitalism are fascinating, as is his take on what our position towards Islamo-Fascism should be. However there's just not enough of this erudite analysis and one can't help but wish more of the book had been focussed on issues like this, which he approaches in a truly stimulating fashion, rather than meandering around issues of the Haitian Revoltution.
But there again, why try to approach a concept and do it justice in a chapter when you can devote half a book to it? Zizek falls into this academic trap far too often; bearing that in mind, I think you can find a more easily understandable distillation of Zizeks's thoughts in a book like Mark Fisher's excellent Capitalist Realism.
Looking back at this review, I'm wondering if I've been too harsh, as there clearly is an important intellect at work here. However he cannot be let off the hook for languishing in far too much selfish brainstorming over so many pages, in such important times as these. This is no time for analyses that are so dense as to be impenetrable, or, for perhaps his greatest fault- sitting too much on the proverbial fence when it comes to describing viable courses of action.
So it's only really in the last thirty pages or so that Zizek hits his stride and postulates ideas based in reality and- dare I say it- starts to make sense. It would be churlish though to say this is the only part of the book worth reading; I have to admit the book is like some particularly complex piece of music that doesn't have any impact on the first few listens, then suddenly sinks in and although not making much immediate, apparent sense, still holds a strange, beguiling beauty.
One final comment- I've deducted a star for the books strange lack of one thing: passion. This is strange, considering the closing page's strident call for `revolutionary' communist action. Despite that, this is an often difficult if eventually rewarding read; just approach it with an eye to being. on quite a few occasions, quite unreasonably baffled by 'science' and a few contradictory conclusions.
