Anyone think Žižek is too soft on his ontology of antagonism?

Deleuze’s difference celebrates diversity, Žižek embraces contradiction. Former is great for identity politics, latter aims at class struggle.

I find the concept ‘antagonism’ to be a great tool for picking up where Hegel’s ambiguous notion of identity left off. One could argue, in this “hate”-sensitive era, we should inversively “Make Hate Great Again” − as in we’re not really friends, we should rather embrace turning against one another. (Hello Jesus from Matthew 10:34)

But is Žižek not more like, wouldn’t you say, a believer of how cynicism could somewhat raise consciousness and things would get magically solved?

We all know his talking points about the Lacanian “gap/split/void/lack” or whatever he wings it with. It still ends up not so different to Deleuze’s disguised “ontology of the One” if there’s no active agent that determines on such a reality as its finalizer.

Antagonism should be brought at the center of contradictory identity.