N
nomadologist
Guest
The BwO and schizophrenia are the major forms of resistance to capitalism outlined by D&G. these are zones of radical deterritorialisation. How could these possibly be "derived" from capitalism?
Worth dying for
- Thread starter Gavin
- Start date
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Well there may not be a huge difference between 'derived from' and 'virally infected by' depending on how those terms are being used. They could mean the same thing really.
If someone makes a claim like 'every single resistive structure or technique they [D&G] lay out is derived directly from capitalism's processes' I'm curious as to the thinking.
If someone makes a claim like 'every single resistive structure or technique they [D&G] lay out is derived directly from capitalism's processes' I'm curious as to the thinking.
Right, that's why everybody else there's posting from Europe too....
Given that they view capitalism much like they do the state, ie as ahistoric, merely awaiting implementation, I don't see how you miss this. If our formula is (as it is for D&G)
capitalism : revaluation of all values
then Genghis Khan's war machine is a gigantic capitalist endeavour
schizophrenia is a form of capitalism
the establishment of the BwO is the end goal of capitalism (ahistoric)
Economic Capitalism is THE massive deterritorializing machine, it is the premier form of deterritorialization which provokes the clinical schizo into his own deterritorialization.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
The inappropriate Genghis Khan analogy aside, we know this from the very first principle of Marxism, that capital is abstract, that coming to terms with it is not simply being 'anti-capitalist' [like the yuppie trader protesting against tobacco companies or animal testing, etc] or 'anti-corporatist', nor is it about just ridding the world of all the bad and greedy exploiters, the really nasty capitalists [to be presumably replaced by the 'good' multicultural-friendly ones, the 'liberal communists']. The problem with many on the liberal-humanist Left is that they actually wish to retain the category of the bad capitalist so that they can keep open the possibility that there are actually - or could be - good (paternalist, altruistic, welfare-friendly) capitalists. But capitalism - as an abstract viral-vanpiric plague - is unreformable , so any 'anti-capitalist' moralizing liberal socialism is not only actually inherent to capitalism itself [just as religous fundamentalism, patriarchy, etc, actually is] , is not only unaware and ignorant of Marxism, it is what Marx came to confront and abolish.
"We need to do just as Marx recommended, and accelerate, not resist, capital's destruction of traditions, ethnicities and territorialities. It might be tempting to find bolt holes of reactionary tradition in which to take flight from the scouring winds of capital, but it is a temptation to be vehemently resisted. The non-organic product of capital's 'Frankensteinian surgery of the cities' (Lyotard), the proletariat emerges from the destruction of all ethnicities, the desolation of all tradition, the destitution of any home.
Marxist atheism is not to be mistaken for the Last Man sniping at religion ... Crucially, Marxist atheism is only achieved once the theological critique of capitalism is completed. This is what separates Marxist atheism from the gliberal platitudes of the likes of Nick Cohen, who proclaim secularism while remaining attached to the theology of capital (liberal commonsense). Theism is defined not by any positive beliefs, but by the role of the fetish or totem as transcendental guarantee of any reality system. The critique of religion is the 'premise of all critique' because critique is about the exposure of such fetish-guarantees. It is necessary to recognize that capitalism is very far from being anti-religious. On the contrary, it is, as Karatani puts it in Transcritique, a 'relgio-genic-process'. 'Whether or not we believe in religion in the narrow sense, real capitalism puts us in a structure similar to that of the religious world. What drives us in capitalism is neither the ideal nor the real (i.e. needs and desires), but the metaphysics and theology originated in exchange and commodity form.' This theology continues to evade critique because it is a disavowed theology, obscured by ideology. We don't really believe that capital is an autonomous force, we know (so we think) that the only reality is that of free individuals. The full confidence in the 'reality' of our free individuality is precisely the ideological feint which allows us to act as if commodities are autonomous. The critique of capitalism therefore entails a ruthless demolition of commodity-theology and its support in the social fetish of the 'free individual'."------K-punk
Marxist atheism is not to be mistaken for the Last Man sniping at religion ... Crucially, Marxist atheism is only achieved once the theological critique of capitalism is completed. This is what separates Marxist atheism from the gliberal platitudes of the likes of Nick Cohen, who proclaim secularism while remaining attached to the theology of capital (liberal commonsense). Theism is defined not by any positive beliefs, but by the role of the fetish or totem as transcendental guarantee of any reality system. The critique of religion is the 'premise of all critique' because critique is about the exposure of such fetish-guarantees. It is necessary to recognize that capitalism is very far from being anti-religious. On the contrary, it is, as Karatani puts it in Transcritique, a 'relgio-genic-process'. 'Whether or not we believe in religion in the narrow sense, real capitalism puts us in a structure similar to that of the religious world. What drives us in capitalism is neither the ideal nor the real (i.e. needs and desires), but the metaphysics and theology originated in exchange and commodity form.' This theology continues to evade critique because it is a disavowed theology, obscured by ideology. We don't really believe that capital is an autonomous force, we know (so we think) that the only reality is that of free individuals. The full confidence in the 'reality' of our free individuality is precisely the ideological feint which allows us to act as if commodities are autonomous. The critique of capitalism therefore entails a ruthless demolition of commodity-theology and its support in the social fetish of the 'free individual'."------K-punk
1, I didn't say anti-bad-capitalist or anti-bad-corporation. I said anti-capitalist and anti-corporatist, full stop. Please direct your comments to my actual statements.
2, Genghis Khan's horde : revaluation of all values : capitalism
if you want to question this, I would suggest you look at his actual mode of governance where :
a) he presided not only over mass slaughter, but more generally over a targeted destruction of state and social structures, ie the elimination of native aristocracies (killing all aristocrats and government members in surrendered cities)
b) disestablishment of coercive religious systems
c) establishment of a free trade zone spanning nearly a million square miles, encompassing all of the major trade routes of the period, to the detriment of established economic elites, both inside and outside his empire
2, Genghis Khan's horde : revaluation of all values : capitalism
if you want to question this, I would suggest you look at his actual mode of governance where :
a) he presided not only over mass slaughter, but more generally over a targeted destruction of state and social structures, ie the elimination of native aristocracies (killing all aristocrats and government members in surrendered cities)
b) disestablishment of coercive religious systems
c) establishment of a free trade zone spanning nearly a million square miles, encompassing all of the major trade routes of the period, to the detriment of established economic elites, both inside and outside his empire
Also
Also, thanks, as I should have dug this up anyway :
<i>"We need to do just as Marx recommended, and accelerate, not resist, capital's destruction of traditions, ethnicities and territorialities."</i>
ie : capitalism as abstract process is the solution to capitalism as historic object
Also, thanks, as I should have dug this up anyway :
<i>"We need to do just as Marx recommended, and accelerate, not resist, capital's destruction of traditions, ethnicities and territorialities."</i>
ie : capitalism as abstract process is the solution to capitalism as historic object
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Yes, but the analogy is still a totally misleading one [these points were 'collateral damage' so to speak], just as Stalinism and Maoism subsequently were, and why they all ultimately failed: the atavistic regression into violent and reactionary patriarchy.
Some of the most bloody capitalists are ultimately, transpire to be, the most sentimental (and brutal) 'anti-capitalists' [and, of course, vice versa].
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
And not just Dawkins, the whole gamut ...
Yes, the excape hatch of the fetish ... is everywhere, from new-ageism, to 'real sex' to whatever the latest 'inner child' fad bullshit happens to be doing the rounds, anything but anything to avoid confronting the 'horror' of the theological real of capitalism.
So Zizek's question is: where is the fetish which enables us to (pretend to) accept capitalist realism, to accept social reality "the way it is"? Zizek likes to single out "Western Buddhism" as one such fetish, but there are all the other, more obvious, ones - the retreat into family, into 'homely' values, into sanitized 'multiculturalism', into ethnicity and racism, into social and class hierarchy, into religious obscuranticism, into la passion du real, into ... internet virtuality: such fetishes enable us to fully participate in the frantic pace of the capitalist virus, while sustaining the perception that we are not really in it, that we are well aware how worthless this whole destructive spectacle is — what really matters to us is the ultimate 'self-experience' or the bucholic peace of the inner Self to which you know you can always withdraw. It is only through a critique of such - theistic - fetishes, in addition to the resulting 'magic' of commodities under capital, that capitalism itself begins to wither away ...
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
I agree with a lot of this and that k-punk bit is indeed excellent but a few things:
What is this assumption that the 'bucolic peace of the inner Self' is somehow invalid? Isn't that another religious position in itself? Where does it come from?
Who are these (straw) people who '(pretend to) accept capitalist realism'? Vimothy? It's not everyone is it? Or is it that we feel pressure to pretend to accept because social unreality becomes too hard to bear otherwise? Might this not be a failure in understanding our own inner world and in that sense relate to the above point? Just an idea.
Also 'when you encounter a person who claims he is cured of any beliefs, accepting social reality the way it really is, you should always counter such claims with a simple, yet intricate question: What is your gadget, your favorite illusionary escape-hatch?---Zizek'.
- That's an interesting interrogation but it's also really obvious, to me at least. Hardly needs stating. It does seem perfectly possible that a person could genuinely hold no beliefs (merely strong suspicions...) and be 'aware of the 'horror' of the theological real of capitalism' whilst also utilising a escape-hatches. I mean I realise it's not a judgement but unless you are fully committed to living on the street and shouting at people or waging gu3rilla warfare from the hills or something then it seems kind of hypocritical. Where do you stand HMLT? Or maybe I shouldn't ask
I'm still curious about what trouc was truculently approaching because it does seem that maybe this whole 'oppositional' stance might be too bound up in conceptualisations borrowed from the prevailing real, unfortunately.
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
- That's an interesting interrogation but it's also really obvious, to me at least. Hardly needs stating. It does seem perfectly possible that a person could genuinely hold no beliefs (merely strong suspicions...) and be 'aware of the 'horror' of the theological real of capitalism' whilst also utilising a escape-hatches. I mean I realise it's not a judgement but unless you are fully committed to living on the street and shouting at people or waging gu3rilla warfare from the hills or something then it seems kind of hypocritical. Where do you stand HMLT? Or maybe I shouldn't ask
I don't know why but I keep thinking of people in my grad-school cohort... For all the critical theory we read and Marxist topics I made everyone discuss in seminar (I guess I was THAT GUY
), they never seemed to really give a shit about it, I was so disappointed. I think comics and video games were their "gadgets." I preferred drugs&alcohol for mine, maybe why I didn't get on with them so well.Actually there's a strong strain of "gadgetry" in cultural studies (what I got my m.a. in), a kind of fishing for "resistance" inside corporate media representations... People writing dissertations on why The L-Word is a Positive Step Forward for lesbians, tripe that doesn't hold up on even a superficial critique. There's even a theoretical canon devoted to it: Michel De Certeau, Henry Jenkins (never realized how much I hated this guy until after I matriculated), Janice Radway, a hundred meager scholars regurgitating received criticism of the Frankfurt School, appropriations of Bataille, Foucault, D&G... it all seemed like doing backflips to justify enjoying crap TV and silly superhero comics.
N
nomadologist
Guest
I don't know why but I keep thinking of people in my grad-school cohort... For all the critical theory we read and Marxist topics I made everyone discuss in seminar (I guess I was THAT GUY
Actually there's a strong strain of "gadgetry" in cultural studies (what I got my m.a. in), a kind of fishing for "resistance" inside corporate media representations... People writing dissertations on why The L-Word is a Positive Step Forward for lesbians, tripe that doesn't hold up on even a superficial critique. There's even a theoretical canon devoted to it: Michel De Certeau, Henry Jenkins (never realized how much I hated this guy until after I matriculated), Janice Radway, a hundred meager scholars regurgitating received criticism of the Frankfurt School, appropriations of Bataille, Foucault, D&G... it all seemed like doing backflips to justify enjoying crap TV and silly superhero comics.
Certeau, really???
I guess all that "flaneur" shit...?
N
nomadologist
Guest
hahhahaha
some people are really really bad readers, tho. i hope this accounts for at least some of this certeau problem.
some people are really really bad readers, tho. i hope this accounts for at least some of this certeau problem.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
But it isn't about their beliefs/non-beliefs, its about how they actually behave in spite of their beliefs. The ideology that sustains capitalism is objectively subjective: it works, one plays the game, acts out its rituals even when one doesn't 'believe' in them, the fetish providing the alibi. And really, this is not at all obvious, it is systematically disavowed. There's nothing obvious about the unconscious.
N
nomadologist
Guest
This is exactly what his "oppositional" stance is bound up in.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Sure, but who does this? Do you? Do I? Is it everybody, or is it just everybody else?
What are some examples of these rituals? Would you say it's possible to resist just by not playing along?
Sorry - a lot of questions. No reason for us to discuss in such abstract terms though.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Unfortunately, I think there are plenty of reasons...
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Why - because it's 'literally impossible for us to think outside the box of disavowed ideology'? How big are we thinking here? Are we saying that literally unthinkable things would be possible if we could get away from this bind? Anything less than that and I'm not interested.
If I can't change the laws of physics I don't want to be part of your revolution.
Last edited:
Again, I think more familiarity with the actual history would benefit you here, because no, that's not what immediately happened. At any rate, I'm not holding Gengis Khan up as some perfect exemplar of anti-capitalist thought, I'm pointing out that within D&G's definition of capitalism he's a perfect fit.
edited to add :
I want to add that 'collateral damage' really doesn't do the facts of the mongol conquest justice, as it was at least partially through the 3 items above (elimination of unpopular political and religious elites combined with a flow of massive wealth) that the horde was able to spread. this was their mechanism
Last edited: