Final Comments on Slavoj Žižek's In Defense of Lost Causes

A year after starting it, I have finally finished reading Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek’s In Defense of Lost Causes, which looks for something of value in revolutionary terror. The book held much more than I could grasp, so rather than attempt an in-depth analysis of it, I will merely post a third, and perhaps final, note (first one, second one) by commenting on Žižek’s program for reinventing “the ‘eternal Idea’ of egalitarian terror.”

In Defense of Lost Causes is a long and involved philosophical, psychoanalytical, political and cultural critique of the ideologies, methods, successes and failures of revolutionary movements from the French Revolution up through today’s Leftist thought. As such, it touches on a wide range of issues, but in its final pages it comes to focus on “the threat of ecological catastrophe.” The last page of the first edition lists four points with regard to addressing this challenge, with the suggestion that they may be of use in other areas as well.

The first of the four points is egalitarian justice. Žižek gives as an example of this all nations, whether developed or developing, being made to obey the same rules with regard to environmental regulations (carbon emissions, etc.). I agree. Developing nations are sometimes allowed laxer standards and some developed nations like the U.S. simply do as they please without regard for international protocols while other nations vigorously tackle environmental challenges.

The second point is terror, which Žižek describes as “ruthless punishment of all who violate the imposed protective measures.” This is the most problematic of the four points. For many, the whole premise of the book--finding what is good about some of the worst scenes in human history--is disturbing. For Žižek openly to recommend terror would seem to confirm their worst suspicions, especially when he includes in his recommended terror “severe limitations on liberal ‘freedoms.’” 

While it is clear, however, from examples throughout the book that for Žižek not all terror must be violent, he does speak almost approvingly of an execution committed by Che Guevara for the cause of revolution. It is hard to pin Žižek down on exactly what specific actions he recommends as defensible terror, and it occurs to me as I write this that this is a flaw of the book. Its analysis is endless, but precise prescriptions are fleeting and vague.

The third point is voluntarism:

“(the only way to confront the ecological catastrophe is by means of large-scale collective decisions which run counter to the ‘spontaneous’ immanent logic of capitalist development.”

This returns to a theme that Žižek and others like French philosopher Alain Badiou, to whom In Defense of Lost Causes is dedicated, develop fascinatingly and convincingly. Capitalism is the enemy and we have, to our detriment, all accepted its logic. Some of Žižek’s passages explain how even capitalism’s opponents must speak its language, thereby acknowledging its victory.

Is capitalism the enemy? This is not something I have made up my mind about. The evils of capitalism are plain to see, but there are forms other than the no-holds-barred capitalism that holds sway in the U.S. and is quickly claiming souls the globe over. There is French economist Michel Albert’s Rhine capitalism, Bill Gates’s creative capitalism and China’s state capitalism. Žižek expresses skepticism about such halfway measures, and perhaps he is right. Perhaps only a radically new order has any real emancipatory potential.

The fourth and final point is trust in the people: “the wager that a large majority of the people supports these severe measures, sees them as its own, and is ready to participate in their enforcement.” He even goes so far as to say we should welcome the reinstitution of informers. The language is inflammatory, but his example is the corporate whistle-blower, indeed an informer of sorts. 

The world does not need a citizens’ thought police such as neighbors turning on neighbors and children reporting their parents as in George Orwell’s 1984, but it does need more gutsy vigilance committed to obedience to just law. The BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 would not have happened if more government watchdogs had taken their jobs seriously and more employees of BP had been willing to turn on their employer and coworkers.

In Defense of Lost Causes is a cornucopia of ideas that encouraged me to review Heidegger, learn about the Cultural Revolution, rewatch Casablanca, listen more to Shostakovich and Prokofiev, and start reading about Critical Theory. It’s a book I will be thinking about for some time, and while I should reread it, I am more likely to dig into Žižek's other books first.