https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Slavoj_Zizek_-_The_Elvis_of_Philosophy: this is actually a good take on Zizek whose writings are to me so confused I often misfire in attempts to comment.
I think Zizek is enclosed in a viewpoint that is cogent up to a point, but which in the final analysis doesn’t really resolve the confusions of the left. His emphasis on Hegel doesn’t resolve the idealism/materialism issue for die hard marxist materialists. Secularist misunderstand their own modernity, and at this point the lowball of the early nineteenth century, in reaction to Hegel for many, is out of date. We can’t expect citizens at a point of crisis to accept marxist materialism in the name of communism. They might just as will adopt their own version of communism. But it would be helpful to have a postmarxist branding that can take the core legacy beyond these philosophic counterpoints. To make matters worse the most confusing aspect of Hegel, his ‘dialectic’ is turned into a pastiche that makes no real sense: dialectical materialism, an obvious poor relation to Samkhya, is confusing leftists. Time to put it aside and redo the subject from scratch… And it is pointless to throw away Schopenhauer: he holds the key, with Kant, to the whole shebang of universal philosophy from the Upanishads, to Plato.
Instead marxist slum around in the worst forms of scientism exposed by Kant.
We need a new revolutionary perspective that is beyond these philosophical wild lands. Materialist, idealist, who needs it: we need a simple praxis independent of these isms.
I think that Zizek preens his feathers too much: his edifice is likely to slide into oblivion. How about a dialogue on some of these issues? I have been too contemptuous, to be sure, but a celebrity stuck in the positive feedback of too much fame and too little substance wrought from Hegel is a thinker in trouble.