/lit/ - Literature

I half-agree. Zizek has some great ideas but his language is couched too far in Lacanian baggage. He belongs too much into the French tradition to be remembered as a truly great writer. Noam, on the other hand, writes books which are immediately accessible by anyone with a basic college education. Zizek isn't actually writing anything more complicated than Chomsky, he's only using the over-precise terminology of French post-structuralism. Chomsky's critique of Zizek has more to do with his writing.

The only reason Zizek is more popular currently than other continental post-structuralist Marxists is because he has made an active effort to be more accessible, putting cute jokes in his texts and trying to explain obscurantist concepts on the way as the reader progresses. But he doesn't take the extra step and exit the obscurantist framework to begin with.