发布时间: 2015-01-12   浏览次数: 50




Letter from Alain Badiou to Slavoj Zizek:

On the Work of Mao Zedong


Dear Slavoj,

    Your introduction to the Verso edition of Mao's philosophical-political texts is, as always, of very great interest. 1 Let me begin by refuting, as I usually do, your reputation as a showman and a conceptual poseur a very French misrepresentation (but let's not worry that they said the same about our master Lacan) – and by saying that your introduction is honest, profound and brave. It is honest because there is no showiness or vague rhetoric; this is an accurate expression of your very ambivalent relationship with the figure of Mao. You recognize the novelty and breadth of his

vision but take the view that it is, in many essential respects, false and dangerous. It is profound because you cut straight to the crucial and difficult question of the relationship between contemporary dialectical thought and politics. Your comments on the negation of the negation are remarkable. You explain, probably for the first time, the underlying reasons why Stalin and Mao reject that 'law'. They fail, that is, to understand its real Hegelian meaning: any immanent negation is, in its essence, a negation of the negation that it is. Your text is, finally brave because, as so often, you lay yourself open to criticism from both sides. The counterrevolutionary descendants of our 'new philosophers' will scream, as they are already doing, that you and

Badiou are both backward-looking, but still dangerous, supporters of a sepulchral communism. What else could the simple fact of talking about Mao mean to this new generation of watchdogs ? Even so, those who remain true to what was, in the lineage of Mao, known in Europe as 'Maoism' - and I am probably now one of its few noteworthy representatives – will have some criticisms to make. You are familiar with

this kind of 'struggle on both fronts" which was a basic slogan of the Cultural Revolution: the struggle against the classic bourgeoisie, whose epicenter is American imperialism, and against the new bureaucratic bourgeoisie whose epicenter was at the time the Soviet Union.









    你对毛爷爷哲学—政治文本Verso版本的引言令人颇感兴趣。让我像往常一样从辩驳开始吧。你以爱出风头和爱表现著称——但这是法式的曲解(不要担心,他们也是这么评价拉康的)——我认为你写的引言直白,深刻,大胆。直白是指你没有运用华丽的词藻和模糊的修辞手法;这准确表达了你和毛爷爷之间那种矛盾而复杂的关系。你认可他观点的独特性和广度,但在许多重要的方面,你认为他的观点是错误而危险的。深刻是指你直接分析了当代辩证思想和政治之间的联系,这是一个重要而复杂的课题。你对否定的否定的评论非常精彩。你首次说明了斯大林和毛爷爷为什么排斥上述“法则”的根本原因。他们没能正确理解黑格尔的意思。你的文字很大胆,是因为你经常把自己置身于双方的批判之中。大家“新一代哲学家”的反革命后裔们会大声嚷嚷着(正如他们现在所做的)你和巴迪欧都在倒退,并且成了可怕的共产主义的危险拥护者。对这些新一代的监视者们来说,谈论毛爷爷能意味着什么呢?尽管如此,这些毛爷爷的追随者在欧洲都被称为“毛主义者”——我现在可能是这个群体的重要代表之一了——他们将要发表一些批判言论了。你应该很熟悉 “跟双方阵营做斗争”,这是学问大革命的基本口号: 与美国帝国主义为中心的传统资产阶级作斗争,与苏联为中心的新官僚资产阶级作斗争。


XML 地图 | Sitemap 地图