I don’t see much promise in attacking Zizek, save that he indirectly ‘trashed’ my Last and First Men, so I can at least press my advantage in a field dominated by celebrities who are too confused to do anything.
I may be wasting my time, but I think I am in a position to produce a much more useful platform of neo-communism than the legacy marxist/leninist brand. The latter has no future. Defend it all you like, but it is going nowhere.
The question of Hegel is very abstract at this point. I suggested a much broader take on such things: expand the perspective of the neo-communist left to include the whole of the early modern, from the Reformation and scientific revolution to the enlightenment and the rest of it, as in the outline history of the macro effect. Beyond that to the whole of world history and its multiple hotspots. Then, the issue of Hegel hardly arises save as a way to simply study the history of modern philosophy and the climactic period of the phase after Kant. It is a much better way to study Hegel. It you must assume marxism first, hegel is simply confusing. Marx et al. became so obsessed with Hegel that they ended up both rejecting and covertly maintaining his mystique. The larger view I suggest would simply bypass all of that by including everything, including Schopenhauer (and his comical blasts at Hegel, and his warning Hegel would confuse a whole generation. He was right)
Psychoanalysis is simply dead baggage at this point. It is a profit gravy train for second rate medical intellectuals who can sit and twiddle their thumbs and make a bundle. It has been rightly criticized by the authors of anti-oedipus.
I was a great fan of Freud in the early sixties, but the critics were gathering to attack, and by the seventies psychoanalysis was on the way out. I think Zizek is simply frozen in time here.
We need to move on. We can deal with Freud by studying Schopenhauer (and others), the real discoverer of the ‘unconscious’, an idea in passing for him in a much larger and richer universe.
Marxist theory is a poor platform for dealing with Hegel. Why bother? Marxism has its own problems: dialectical materialism is a real piece of junk. Historical materialism is even worse than (neo-)classical economics as a theoretical fiction.
The left needs a clear and simple non-hegelian version of ‘dialectic’ without mystifications such as a ‘materialist’ dialectic. The whole thing should be reduced to common sense, as a study of ‘debates’ (dialectic) and no more. Trying to analyze capitalism using dialectic simply makes capitalist ideologists smile: dialectical dead ducks.
And it needs a non-theory of economic systems that can expose mathematical neo-classical economics. Marx/Engels make terrific background, the Old Testament. A New Testament of post-marxist communist theory and practice has to start from scratch. It needs to be post-theoretical and simple to use without a lot of training.
The revolutionaries of the American revolution were mainly farmers. They didn’t have to figure theory. How much theory do you need in democratic revolution toward communism?