This is a reply to Slavoj Zizek's article "Mandela's Socialist Failure" published online in The Stone (a New York Times maintained philosophy blog) on December 6, 2013. In eight pithy paragraphs Zizek endeavors to expose the real legacy of Mandela as opposed to his current "beatification." The Catholic Church used to have someone play the role of Devil's Advocate to denigrate the reputation of a person nominated to become a saint. Zizek has taken it upon himself to see to it that Mandela's "beatification" does not progress to full fledged "sainthood."
Zizek's mantra is that "Mandela was not Mugabe"-- the "good" as
opposed to the "bad" Black African leader. Mandela is seen as "a
saintly wise man" and Hollywood even makes movies about him. He was
"impersonated" by Morgan Freeman who, Zizek points out also
impersonated God! Oh my!-- what are they trying to tell us? Zizek
should perhaps be reminded that Morgan Freeman is an outstanding
actor (or impersonator if you prefer) and has played many roles--
including a chauffeur. And, Zizek notes, "rock stars and religious
leaders, sportsmen and politicians from Bill Clinton to Fidel
Castro are all united in his beatification." Somehow I don't see
Fidel Castro as a "politician" in quite the same way as the
unprincipled pragmatist Bill Clinton. Nor do I think Fidel and
Clinton are "united" in their evaluations of Nelson Mandela-- far
from it. According to Zizek, Mandela is hailed for leaving behind
"a muti-party democracy with free press and a vibrant [!] economy
well-integrated into the global market and immune [!] to hasty
Socialist experiments."
But what is the truth about this man's legacy? The Devil's Advocate will reveal "two key facts" that are "obliterated" by all the pro-Mandela beatification activities. Fact One: There is still wide spread poverty and social misery in South Africa and an increase in "insecurity, violence, and crime." The majority of Black South Africans are living "broadly," Zizek says, "the same as under apartheid." This fact "counterbalances" any "rise of political and civil rights." What is the "main change" in South Africa since the time of Mandela according to Zizek? It is a "new black elite" has joined the "old white ruling class"-- not a new constitution giving equal rights to all citizens and allowing all South Africans to live and work together.
Zizek's statements are completely ridiculous. There are
deepening economic problems in South Africa today as well as class
divisions but Black people and all South Africans no longer have to
carry passes, all can vote, people can go to the same beaches and
hotels, etc. The millions who mourned the death of Mandela are
acutely aware of the problems facing their country and also aware
that the repressive, dehumanizing regime of official racism and
apartheid is dead. To think that reality has been "obliterated" in
the consciousness of South African people by a Mandela sainthood
cult is an insulting affront to the citizens of the new South
Africa and reeks of a colonial European outlook towards African
peoples. So much for "Fact One."
Fact Two: Black South Africans are becoming angry because the
memory of the aims of the "old" African National Congress (social
justice and a "kind of" socialism are being "obliterated from our
memory." Far from being "obliterated" the program of the ANC and
its allies in the labor unions and the South African Communist
Party are constantly debated and discussed by the people of South
Africa and the demands for more radical reforms and more
progressive policies can be democratically advanced. Zizek
overlooks the fact that there is a real living democracy at the
root of the New South Africa and that Nelson Mandela played a major
role in its creation. The millions mourning his passing are not
mindless masses with "obliterated" memories.
According to Zizek South Africa is just another example of the current left paradigm: the left comes to power promising a "new world" but then confronts the reality of the international neoliberal capitalist consensus . Imperialism can speedily punish countries trying to embark on the socialist road. In South Africa's case political power was ceded to the ANC on condition that the existing economic system was preserved . It was thought that this prevented a civil war of massive proportions. This Historic Compromise (called by some a Faustian pack with the old regime) is at the root of the current problems of poverty and mass discontent in the country.
Zizek is sympathetic to Mandela's dilemma -- create a "new
world"-- risk a civil war-- or "play the game" and abandon the
"socialist perspective." [There is too much focus on Mandela here--
these decisions were made collectively by the leaders of all the
major forces in the liberation movement.] Zizek asks a
question that is still hotly debated today. Given the
constellation of forces facing the ANC et al on the
assumption of power "was the move towards socialism a real option?"
[Compromise was indeed necessary, but did the ANC concede too
much?]
Seemingly inspired by Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (a coming
of age novel for adolescent libertarians), Zizek looks for "the
grain of truth" in the "hymn to money" found in the novel: "Until
and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask
for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by
which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other
men. Blood, whips and guns or dollars. Take your choice-- there is
no other."
Not only is there no "grain of truth" in this "hymn" but when
human beings only deal with each other on the basis of money we get
all the horrors of blood, whips and guns that humans employ against
each other in order to obtain and control more and more money
(slavery, colonialism, imperialism, fraud-- you name it). It is not
humans per se, of course, who engage in these horrors, but a
special class of humans (capitalists) created by the dominant
economic system of monopoly capitalism.
Not content with uncovering a grain of truth in Randism, Zizek
imputes the same idea to Karl Marx-- a most un-Randian leap of
fallaciousness. He asks if Marx's ideas about "the universe of
commodities" were not similar to what Rand said in her hymn about
money. After all Marx said under capitalism "relations between
people assume the guise of relations among things." This is a
perfect example of a non sequitur and I defy anyone to
find the similarity between Marx's statements about the fetishism
of commodities and Rand's view "that money is the root of all
good."
Zizek's confusions continue. He thinks that the relations
between people in the "market economy" can appear "as relations of
mutually recognized freedom and equality." Maybe in the days of
Adam Smith but I doubt even then. Donald Trump and his chauffeur
hardly are equals or exercise the same amount of freedom. Mitt
Romney thought 47 per cent of the American people were social
parasites and he is an outstanding representative of the freedom
and equally offered by the "market economy." Most working
people know exactly their relations to their bosses and it not only
appears to be unequal and unfree (who gets the pink slip and loses
unemployment insurance) it is unequal and unfree-- and all of Ayn
Rand's baloney will never make it otherwise.
It is obvious to any aware working person, that the blatant
inequality and restrictions on human freedom under the "market
economy" lived and felt by millions of Greek workers, Spanish
working people, and others in the EU and throughout the world,
that Zizek's view -- under capitalism "domination is no
longer directly enacted and visible as such" -- is just nonsense.
Such ruminations by a famous philosopher can only give philosophy a
bad name.
While Zizek says that Ayn Rand's ideological claim (only the
love of money can free people) is ridiculous, he persists in
reminding us of the "moment of truth" it contains. The problem, he
thinks, is Rand's "underlying premise" which is "that the only
choice is between direct and indirect relations of domination and
exploitation" and any alternative is "utopian." Ayn Rand has no
such premise. She thinks in simple dichotomies. Unfettered dynamic
capitalism and the love of money is GOOD and it is in no way,
direct or indirect, involved in any relations of domination and
exploitation-- it is the root of GOODNESS. On the other hand any
efforts by liberals , socialists, misguided Catholic popes, or
anybody else that impinges on this system of goodness is EVIL and a
direct source domination and exploitation.
Zizek, however, thinks the "moment of truth" in Ayn Rand's theory of money is that it teaches us "the great lesson of state socialism." Despite Zizek's discovery of the Randian "moment of truth," I don't recommend using Atlas Shrugged as a prolegomena to any future socialism. This is the "truth" that Zizek has discovered. If you abolish private property (God forbid!) and the market without concretely regulating production then you resuscitate "direct relations of servitude and domination." What does this mean? What "state socialist" country or countries can he be referring to that did not or do not have plans that regulate production? So called "state socialism" was famous for having "central planning" and tried to concretely regulate both production and distribution. As it stands Zizek's lesson is pointless.
He expands on his lesson. If we just abolish the market "without
replacing it with a proper form of Communist organization of
production and exchange, domination returns with a vengeance, and
with it direct exploitation." This isn't very helpful. Communism
doesn't spring full blown from the brow of Lenin the day after the
revolution. What does Zizek think is the "proper form" of
Communism. He gives us no clue in this article. I fear there is no
lesson at all to be learned from Ayn Rand's "moment of truth."
Certainly not Zizek's tautology that socialism fails to create
communism if it doesn't create the proper form of
communism.
Zizek now propounds a "general rule"-- it is really just his way
of saying the more things change the more they stay the same.
It goes like this: when the people rise up against "an oppressive
half-democratic regime" [what is a "half-democracy"-- people either
have democratic rights or they don't] it's "easy" to get large
demonstrations underway [I think that's what rising up means] and
crowd pleasing slogans are devised (pro democracy, anti-corruption,
etc) but after the "revolt succeeds" the people find themselves
still oppressed as they were before except in a "new
guise."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
