Fascism!

[nomadthethird]

I love this sentence. Very good.



The theory of Zizek as wild psychoanalyst goes like this - we, the readers, have all these pathological fantasies about the world, politics, and so on. Zizek confronts us with these by means of a finely-honed rhetorical strategy. Through his discursive spiral, we come to recognize these irrationalities for what they are. His more blood-thirsty sounding statement are merely rhetorical lures, concocted to draw us towards some higher purpose; namely, recognizing that, as Lacan put it with regards to the idea of the end of analysis, "one is always responsible for one's position as subject." That is, that you are the one who is ultimately responsible for the realities you choose to (unconsciously) invest in.

This may yet be the case. But there are several problems here. The first is that Zizek is not just a Lacanian, but also a Marxist, and hence someone dabbling in promulgating a master discourse, as opposed to a purely analytic one. He is also a Hegelian who wants you to know stuff - hence, there is also a university discourse. Finally, in his various comic ravings, there are definitely elements of the hysteric's discourse. So Zizek is not operating with a pure analyst's discourse.

But we are not in the clinic, and so maybe an analyst's discourse in the expanded Lacanian field involves setting-up feints of this sort. This may be. On the other hand, if this is the plan, it is going awry, since none of Zizek's supporters - without exception - appears willing to take it to its full limits. Were they to do so, it would become necessary to view outbursts like the Kirsch article as all part of the master plan. Kirsch has invested, he will be analyzed, he will be ours. But Zizek supporters don't do this - instead they say that hostile critics have misunderstood him, are in some kind of bad faith, how dare you insult him, you should leave the Zizek to the specialists. And so on. In other words, they plunge back into their own master discourses. So the discourse of the master marches on, and the analysis is arrested. And meanwhile, Zizek seems to be succeeding neither in mobilizing the hordes, or in truly opening-up space for thought.

This last paragraph is possibly the dumbest thing...

"Supporters", like he's a political official.

No one cares if idiots want to insult Zizek based on some strange fantasy they have about Zizek being some sort of misguided "analyst"...they clearly don't or can't understand his work, and that's fine.

I'm perfectly happy with you, Mr. Tea, and Vimothy in the dark regarding what Zizek is obviously actually saying. Doesn't bother me in the least. Kirsch either. I have no idea who Kirsch is.

 

[nomadthethird]

Still haven't seen the citations for this, Josef:

Zizek argues that a violent revolution is necessary in order to end (bad) capitalism and deliver (good) communism. Some wanton carnage will happen, he recognizes, but this will serve in the end the common good. The end will justify the means. Is this not your definition of fascism?

Titles and page numbers would work. Thanks.

 

[nomadthethird]

So Lacanian psychoanalysis is purely discursive technique meant to 'enlighten', through contradiction, the analysand as to their 'true nature'?

No. This isn't even in the ballpark.

 

[nomadthethird]

What, exactly, is your problem with Zizek Josef? Can we get something more based in real life (your own fantasies, for example) than what you believe Zizek is saying?

Because when it comes to the latter, you are very simply wrong. You clearly lack the background in Lacan or Marx to actually understand the extent to which Zizek is either a Lacanian or a Marxist. So let's leave that alone for a moment.

Clearly Zizek annoys you more than other Lacan-inspired Marxists, for example. There must be a reason for this. Why the crusade against only one anti-capitalist, who is perhaps the LEAST likely to endorse violent means of revolution than the other dozens upon dozens of Marxist theorists are, otherwise?

Did he say something you didn't like about class consciousness? Does it bother you the idea that people actually can do something politically to resist capitalism, even if it's minor or marginal and does not use military force? What exactly is it that you think he is saying that gives you pause?

So far, you've only attacked a phantom, this Zizek in your mind who only bothers with theory because it feeds a need for him to take on a parental, "analyst" role, one who is trying to tell you what to do with your life, and not only that, but one who dares make claims regarding what's "pathological" and what isn't in culture. This Zizek of yours is also a fascist, if he could he would kill everything you know and love, strip you of your rights, just so he could rule in a "Zizekian" utopia (this I just find hilarious).

Please explain why you're attacking a person's character rather than their claims based on an interpretation of their claims that you cling to even when it's torn to shreds by most anyone familiar with Zizek.

 

[nomadthethird]

... strange to see it coming back.

Really? Is it that strange? You're the one who brought it up and continues to bring it up in every thread on here where it's come up.

 

[nomadthethird]

a true believer of "progress", and "democracy"

Ah yes, that bastion of non-violence that has no blood on its hands whatsoever.

 

[nomadthethird]

And everyone here can drop the "Zizekians will defend Zizek no matter what he says", because I'm about as far from a "Zizekian" as you can get ideologically. So is Agent Nucleus. As has been made abundantly clear in thread after thread lately.

 

[nomadthethird]

Thanks. But you see what I mean, though: some anti-capitalists seem to believe in the system they long to bring down in much the same terms as the average mediaeval Christian believed in the Devil; no mere idea or system, but an Entity with a will of its own independent of those of its minions.

Ahh, I love this one. Dissensus' favorite! People who are interested in resisting capitalism are DEISTS, because they understand that ECONOMICS is an ONTOLOGICAL mode.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Ahh, I love this one. Dissensus' favorite! People who are interested in resisting capitalism are DEISTS, because they understand that ECONOMICS is an ONTOLOGICAL mode.

You can resist something without attributing to it supernatural powers or a personality. Hell, it may even help your cause. Or you can use CAPITALISATION seemingly at RANDON to try and make a POINT.

 

[nomadthethird]

You can resist something without attributing to it supernatural powers or a personality. Hell, it may even help your cause. Or you can use CAPITALISATION seemingly at RANDON to try and make a POINT.

At "random", or I could use capitals to highlight the most important words for all of you seeming victims of macular degeneration who apparently can't read.

 

[nomadthethird]

You can resist something without attributing to it supernatural powers or a personality. Hell, it may even help your cause. Or you can use CAPITALISATION seemingly at RANDON to try and make a POINT.

Who attributed a personality to capitalism?

Have you never heard the word "system" used to describe an assemblage of characteristics that seem to add up to a sum greater than the whole of its parts? I have.

 

[nomadthethird]

Also, who says that a certain political forces don't exert an exceptionally strong influence over our way of life, our systems of government, our language, our way of doing things, etc?

No one thinks capitalism is "supernaturally powerful", but many people think that politics can have very far reaching implications (beyond a narrowly construed "political" sphere of elections and government bureaus).

 

[josef k.]

I think I've failed to convey my thoughts to you Nomad, because once again, I don't recognize my positions - or motives - in your surmise of them. I also feel we are going around in circles. I also am not sure how I would be able to respond to your assertions of my self-evident wrongness, bad faith, and so on, in a manner which would satisfy you. So I suggest that you and I simply agree to disagree on this matter.

 

[nomadthethird]

I think I've failed to convey my thoughts to you Nomad, because once again, I don't recognize my positions in your surmise of them. I also feel we are going around in circles. I also am not sure how I would be able to respond to your assertions of my self-evident wrongness, bad faith, and so on, in a manner which would satisfy you. So I suggest that you and I simply agree to disagree on this matter.

You said Zizek is a fascist, several times. I did not imagine that, nor did I pull it out of thin air. I did not imagine that you've accused Zizek of "summoning violence." I did not imagine that you claimed Zizek takes on an analyst-analysand relationship with his (realy or imaginary) audience. You stated that explicitly.

I would be more than happy to drop the subject, but let's not try to pretend that I simply did not understand what you said. What you said was very clear. Don't try to back down now and hide behind the old "you don't recognize my positions" and "I'm not sure I conveyed them" because you've conveyed them in similar words and phrases many, many times at this point.

What you've said about Zizek is loud and clear, across several threads, and unambiguous.

 

[josef k.]

What you've said about Zizek is loud and clear, across several threads, and unambiguous.

I feel this is so.

 

[Agent]

I suspect there's a standard Marxist-psychoanalytic answer to this, which is something like "under capitalism, all pleasure is a false or temporary pleasure that leads merely to a desire for more pleasure" (insert your drug addiction analogy here - HBO as the new opiate of the people, etc.).

exactly.

by jouissance Lacan means unmediated enjoyment, it's a simultaneous experience of trauma and orgasm, or the 'oceanic feeling' Freud talked about. Capitalism offers substitutes. I think this is a standard response because it is so obvious. Television really is (chemically) addictive, gratification really is delayed indefinitely. Ofc this idea didn't begin with Marx, or Freud for that matter, and it didn't even start with Capitalism. Though I agree with you on that, there's a huge difference between capitalism and Capitalism, and yeah the hardcore Marxists sound like Ickeans (Capitalism is impossibly evil, etc) half the time. But it does kind of have a life of its own, it really is vampiric. When i say it's designed to delay gratification, I just mean that exchange value replaces real value (isn't this the whole foundation capitalism is based on?), so as I think nomad said in an earlier post, desire is always "paid forward", or maybe exchanged for a substitute jouissance or a simulacrum. Corporations are emergent and self-organizing, they resemble a living organism. That doesn't mean they have a personality, quite the opposite. I might write something more thorough tommorow, with some research. I think K-Punk's Gothic Materialism and ofc Xenoeconomics comes into play here. Then there's the whole bit about how we don't desire anything anymore, all of it is programmed into us through marketing ("buy things you don't need"). Was I born with an innate desire for a Range Rover? I mean, maybe there's some biological drive at work here, but that seems like a stretch.

eh i need to get back the paper i handed in this semester comparing the Alien in Ridley Scot's film to late capitalism. "We don't consume anymore, *it* consumes *us*" lol

 

[nomadthethird]

exactly.

by jouissance Lacan means unmediated enjoyment, it's a simultaneous experience of trauma and orgasm, or the 'oceanic feeling' Freud talked about. Capitalism offers substitutes. I think this is a standard response because it is so obvious. Television really is (chemically) addictive, gratification really is delayed indefinitely. Ofc this idea didn't begin with Marx, or Freud for that matter, and it didn't even start with Capitalism. Though I agree with you on that, there's a huge difference between capitalism and Capitalism, and yeah the hardcore Marxists sound like Ickeans (Capitalism is impossibly evil, etc) half the time. But it does kind of have a life of its own, it really is vampiric. When i say it's designed to delay gratification, I just mean that exchange value replaces real value (isn't this the whole foundation capitalism is based on?), so as I think nomad said in an earlier post, desire is always "paid forward", or maybe exchanged for a substitute jouissance or a simulacrum. Corporations are emergent and self-organizing, they resemble a living organism. That doesn't mean they have a personality, quite the opposite. I might write something more thorough tommorow, with some research. I think K-Punk's Gothic Materialism and ofc Xenoeconomics comes into play here. Then there's the whole bit about how we don't desire anything anymore, all of it is programmed into us through marketing ("buy things you don't need"). Was I born with an innate desire for a Range Rover? I mean, maybe there's some biological drive at work here, but that seems like a stretch.

eh i need to get back the paper i handed in this semester comparing the Alien in Ridley Scot's film to late capitalism. "We don't consume anymore, *it* consumes *us*" lol

And now you're on to the really hard question--what method of resistance works better? Trying to reclaim/revisit/revive jouissance, or is anhedonia the only available (rational?) reaction to our being barred from it? (Or is there a third way, as some xenoeconomists we know might suggest, where we are to "enjoy the symptom" and rewire ourselves somehow to avoid making a choice between jouissance or anhedonia?)

 

[Mr. Tea]

I dunno, I ate some cheese earlier that I'd bought yesterday, and I can't say I noticed the jouissance derived thereby being in any way attenuated or delayed by the nefarious influence of Capital. This is just what I was talking about: what, besides the obvious trivial point about markets, supply and demand etc., has capitalism got to do with cheese? Or rather, what has cheese to do with capitalism? Would my cheese really taste any better under state socialism? The history of socialist states would tend rather to suggest the opposite...

 

[nomadthethird]

Oh ffs.

We're not talking about all and any sorts of pleasure when we say jouissance. Jouissance is a very specific term, you'd have to read at least some psychoanalysis and theory to be able to use it the way Agent is using it. It does not simply mean "joy" in the way most people use the term, loosely and colloquially, in this discussion.

Don't google just "jouissance", though, you'll get a bunch of pictures of scat porn. Seriously.

Maybe try Barthes and jouissance for a good intro.

 

[nomadthethird]

And, if you've been reading at all carefully, and not just tossing in the rote "this is my commonsense criticism of theorists I haven't read based only on Dissensus discussions" comments, you'd see that some of us don't really think communism is the answer, especially not to the problems surrounding jouissance.