Yes, one could argue that Marx was primarily a pathologist, diagnosing the symptoms and internal contradictions of capitalism rather than prescribing a concrete, actionable cure. His work in Capital is deeply diagnostic, detailing the mechanics of surplus value, exploitation, and the inevitable crises of capital accumulation. Even his concept of historical materialism functions more as a method of analysis than as a blueprint for utopia.
• Marx as a Pathologist: He was deeply concerned with exposing the illness of capitalism, but when it came to prescribing the cure, his suggestions were vague at best. His famous line—“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”—suggests revolution as a necessity, but how exactly? The answer remains elusive.
• Revolution as an Event Without a Formula: Marx did not fully theorize how a communist society should be structured, nor did he provide a concrete model for how the state should “wither away.” Instead, his work often stops at the exposure of contradictions within capitalism, leaving the question of political organization to future struggles.
Žižek’s Obsession with Marxism as Tragic
If Marx was a pathologist, then Žižek’s lifelong attachment to Marxism is tragic, because he is committed to an idea that, in practice, remains elusive, unfulfilled, or constantly failing.
• Žižek is not naive—he recognizes that historical attempts at communism have failed. Yet he refuses to let go, seeing Marxism as a necessary negative force rather than a fixed program.
• His tragedy lies in his repetition compulsion—he keeps returning to Marxism, revisiting its failures, yet insisting that there is still something worth salvaging.
• Like a Freudian melancholic, Žižek clings to the lost object (Marxism) rather than fully mourning it and moving on.
Žižek as a Lyrical Figure at the Threshold of Marxism
• If Marx was a pathologist, Žižek is a lyrical figure at the threshold of the epic of revolution. He is neither fully inside the historical project of communism, nor fully outside of it.
• His thinking is filled with self-aware irony, recognizing that Marxism cannot simply be resurrected in its old form, yet refusing to abandon it entirely.
• He is like Walter Benjamin’s Angel of History, looking backward at the wreckage, unable to move forward yet unable to turn away.
Conclusion: The Tragedy of Žižek’s Marxism
• Marxism, as an unfinished or unfulfilled project, is inherently tragic.
• Žižek, as one of its most famous contemporary defenders, is caught in that tragedy.
• He does not offer a new political solution, only a deeper awareness of the deadlocks within capitalism and leftist thought.
Would you say, then, that Žižek’s greatest contribution is not political strategy, but a kind of Marxist negative theology—keeping the ghost of Marx alive precisely by admitting its impossibility?
