As with most of Žižek work - I agree with some of some parts and disagree with the other parts. For instance the frame he uses to displace the "left" from the Zapatistas to the Democrats - is that they are bound by a tactical frivolity that is more about humor than one of direct class warfare - well one could say that of all of Žižek work (it is funny, critical, full of love for globalization's pop-culture and he also lacks any push to direct action at the scale of class war that Chávez has done). He also falls into the greater paradigm of immaterial globalization that resists looking at the the situated conditions within each states and to what degree they function as they either function as mediators for neoliberal(isms) or as resistance(s) sites - one can sense the nature of the situated frame of this struggle with the the battle for how Mexican oil and how it will continue to function - as state-owned or as privately owned or how the Zapatistas still view the state as an important component for resistance to globalization/while accepting the process of new networks that flow beyond the state to question the state from within/without - without erasing Mexico as a state - so the long of and short of it is that Žižek is a "subcomediante" himself - which is fine with me, since words and ideas are just as important to me - but, if I ever see him take the reins of the State power like Chávez - it will the funniest revolution ever too happen! and I will certainly be happy to join in!

ciao,
r