tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post7245963910391593166..comments2023-10-08T05:00:23.559-04:00Comments on Clarissa's Blog: Badiou's The Communist Hypothesis: A Review, Part IIClarissahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-73722465775163104722010-10-05T03:24:32.623-04:002010-10-05T03:24:32.623-04:00We need a new Big Idea? Dunno if you noticed how &...We need a new Big Idea? Dunno if you noticed how 'the [self declared] last Maoist in France', in arguing against taking money from the State ('we must take our distance from the state'), now seems to line up with UK PM David Cameron's Big Society?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-26691983868314334622010-09-06T11:32:36.770-04:002010-09-06T11:32:36.770-04:00Maybe they are lost in Cold War politics as you sa...Maybe they are lost in Cold War politics as you say, but I think the subtext of both of their work is "Marxism-Leninism was an astronomical catastrophe, but we need to find new means of resistance to capitalism." Zizek defines communism as a belief in the public commons. Badiou strips it of all notions of property and state and defines it in three axioms: egalitarianism, distance from the state, and finally getting rid of specialization. These seem forward thinking enough that they're not tied to any usurpation of state by party politics. The problem is when they name themselves Marxist, that's the connotation they have to receive. And yes, Badiou is much more forgiving of Stalin and Mao, but he does consider Stalin a totalizing traitor and Mao a noble failure, so he's not completely crazy. I just don't see better options is what I'm saying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com