The contribution analyses the increasing criticism, voiced by the younger generation of Slovenian intellectuals from the first post-war years until the end of the 1950s. The critical attitude towards the pressing social issues started developing in the beginning of the 1950s, as Mladinska revija - the first post-war literary magazine, published between 1946 and 1951 - was still subject to thorough scrutiny by the authorities. In the period of its successor - the Beseda magazine between 1951 and 1957 - certain more radical debates or critiques of the existing situation were already published. This publication stopped coming out in 1957. However, contrary to what the authorities had expected, a similar circle of the associates of this magazine's successor, the Revija 57 magazine (published in 1957 and 1958), was even more critical of the situation in the state. This contribution thus follows two parallel processes: on the one hand the increasingly critical attitude of the younger-generation intellectuals towards the authorities; and on the other hand the mounting pressure that the authorities exerted against magazines that published critical texts. At first the publications were merely the focus of political disapproval, followed by the abolishment of subsidies and thus consequently the cancellation of the magazines; while towards the end of the 1950s we can already come across a judicial process against an author of socially- critical articles.
Against the background of the policing power of the university discourse, the paper discusses the prototypes and general roles of charismatic theorists from the 1960s to the present in the contexts of transformations of the university from its Humboldtian type based in the importance of national culture to its late-capitalist subjection to the neoliberal mercantilization and globalization of knowledge. Focused on a case study of Slovenian literary theorist Dušan Pirjevec (1921–77) and the conditions of the communist policing of the university, the charisma of theory is explained as the theorist’s fascinating personal presence (working through the transference with the theorist as a “subject supposed to know”) that imbues his/her texts with a quasi-metaphysical quality transgressing both the boundaries of any disciplinary knowledge and the “bureaucratized” position of average university teachers. In Pirjevec’s case, the charisma of theory is patterned on the figure of critical intellectuals, whereas, in the neoliberal present, it is produced or reinforced within the global star system driven mostly by American universities and transnational scholarly publishing.
October ’17 and May ’68, two of the three events Marxists around the world celebrate today in their quest for new prophecies, also delineate le Siecle as Alain Badiou sees it in 2005, with Ranciere constituting, according to Badiou, a rare echo of that century in the next one. When it then comes to thinking the future of Marxist thought by way of analyzing its history, the trajectory of Jacques Ranciere may very well offer a productive starting point.