Zizek often talks as if Deleuze had put forward a post-modern relativism, which he didn’t, and as if he had no arguments against Freud and Lacan, which he did. The unconscious and the dialectic belong to noone.
The pluralist reponse to Zizek, or to any dogmatist, would be to integrate him into a vaster picture, making use of the creation of concepts that are compatible with a pluralist outlook and jettisoning the dogma. This is what I am trying to do on my blog, which explains why the Zizekians, the Laruelleans, etc are keeping quite and ignoring me.
We need a multiplicity of thinkers working on similar themes and research programmes, and not just one master-thinker, because each adds different things, new references, new examples, different arguments, a different style. Much of what Zizek says, but not all, is quite Deleuzian only reformulated in Lacanian and Hegelian terms. I do not think that he should be rejected in toto because of this. The main question is whether one can learn from reading Zizek, for me the answer is yes. Zizek’s LESS THAN NOTHING is a very interesting book, even if I reject the Lacanian framework.
Of course it would be nice to simply speak in my own name and no longer refer to these other thinkers that have inspired such partisan followings. This is what I am working towards. At least I have been trying to be explicit about my own criteria (a metaphysical research programme whose heuristic core is an open, immanent, pluralist, processual (diachronic), apophatic, democratic ontology). But I still need to refer to these names, which is probably a weakness.
The example of the Laruelleans is quite appropriate here. Zizek refers back to Lacan and Hegel, he does not pretend to be the only non-standard philosopher in the world. Despite treating Deleuze as an ideological enemy he finds much inspiration in DIFFERENCE AND REPETITION and LOGIC OF SENSE. On these three points (non-originality, non-unicity and non-totalisation of the other) Zizek is far less dogmatic than Laruelle.