# on chomsky vs zizek part n a debate that never happened the problem with talking in terms of "chomsky vs. zizek" this isn't another episode of celebrity intellectual heavyweight deathmatch; talking in terms of 'chomsky vs. zizek' trivializes both what's vitally important - and trivial- about both of them and what they have to say. this also suggests that they don't already share the welfare of humanity in common arguments against chomsky raoul vaneigem said "people who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints such people have corpses in ir mouths" while facts are entirely necessary chomsky often bores people to death with the dry weight of ir acutely accurate books; perhaps - as zizek implies - the facts aren't enough what's dangerously and unfortunately conspicuous by absence is chomsky's too-often deliberate refusal to clearly state entirely subjective thoughts and feelings about historical facts. chomsky is often at ir most radical and anti-political when ey merely smiles or when ey makes other people laugh when eg. mentioning not caring about team sports when young perhaps ey feels that talking at all subjectively about facts undermines ir seriousness; yet maybe failing to express personal subjectively undermines ir arguments against zizek while zizek laughs - that is appears radically human - and often makes subjective (/dirty) jokes about the factual subjects and people ir's discussing (something itself very political) ir continual refusal to discuss such subjects in a strict wider historical context as chomsky does non-paradoxically makes ir theory-heavy arguments about our ongoing inhuman condition seem too often mere vain intellectual posturing and showboating about / around actual historical evidence and its brute empirical weight on chomsky's false criticism of zizek while chomsky criticizes a particular ideology doesn't mean ir's criticizing ideology itself - or feels the need to on zizek's false criticism of chomsky just because chomsky has never criticized the ideology of kung fu panda still doesn't mean zizek doesn't often engage in empty theatrical posturing to make ir points - valid or otherwise. ir's also yet failed to explain the deep connections between radical subjectivity and theory clearly (that is without joking about it) chomsky's imaginary arguments against himself chomsky: "i didn't put a woopie cushion on the chair of that smirking anus buckley before our so-called interview.. and then laugh like a madman to and for myself" zizek's imaginary arguments against himself zizek: "that i explicitly consider my political jokes 'serious business' is itself an unconscious ideology" arguments against both chomsky and zizek this fake schism is like two old goats butting egos on the public stage - a weak pissing contest between old fools more concerned about ir position and image than whatever they (allegedly) purport to talk about rather than getting directly together to help get us out of this deep (factual and theoretical) mire we're all drowning in they're both content - almost like they've agreed to - to trade occasional cheap shots across the intellectual bows at the expense of political discourse / human(e) dialogue itself of course another problem with both of them is imagining politics offers anyone anything but false problems - and solutions (even that warbling twit sting said "there is no political solution / to our troubled evolution"); perhaps they should get together for a smoke - now there's a discussion we'd like to see // republic of bob