Fascism!

[vimothy]

"this is my commonsense criticism of theorists I haven't read based only on Dissensus discussions"

I know that this is your favourite trope, nomad, but does anyone here actually think like this?

 

[vimothy]

Agent Nucleus: I think Mr Tea's 'unmediated experience' and counterfactuals line is a good one: authoritarian socialist states, medieval states, failing states... there is, in your view, I assume, a qualitative difference between the physical and emotional experience of life in capitalist and non-capitalist states, between exactly the same actions undertaken in different political environments and constitutional orders?

Are you sure?

I just mean that exchange value replaces real value (isn't this the whole foundation capitalism is based on?)

But does it really, or is that just a meaningless statement that nevertheless looks quite good on paper? (Exchange value vs. use value formula is itself amusingly rather 'useless' in its original terms as an economic theory -- its exchange value in literary criticism excepted ).

Corporations are emergent and self-organizing, they resemble a living organism.

Contrasted with the rest of human society, which is...?

 

[Mr. Tea]

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.

But Zizek does (unless, again, I've hideously misconstrued him...), and he's been a major subject of discussion in this thread.

 

[Mr. Tea]

OK, we've strayed pretty far from fascism, but never mind, this is interesting.

I've a question for nomad, AN or anyone else versed in Lacan: what sort of jouissance-conducive activity or experience is radically different when it happens under capitalism compared to in a non-capitalist society? Food apparently doesn't count, but what about sex? AN mentioned orgasms a few posts ago - would I be having radically psychologically different (and presumably better) sex if there was no such thing as capitalism? Or if not that then some other example, something concrete.

 

[josef k.]

This is not a simple question, especially since "capitalism" wasn't really an operative term for Lacan - or Freud, for that matter. Or psychoanalysis in general. Freud says (in Civilization and its Discontents) that the renunciation of jouissance happens with the formation of civilized society - you have to renounce your immediate instincts to pillage and rape and whatnot in exchange for the greater security provided by society. One of his own examples, which I think is hilarious, is "Whenever primitive man came across a fire, his immediate desire was to urinate on it. But he had to master this impulse in order to master fire."

It is not an easy matter to combine Lacan and Marx (or Marx and Freud) in order to arrive at a historical theory of the descent of jouissance. Many have tried, nobody has really succeeded. The reason for this is not hard to see. Psychoanalysis and Marxism have extremely diverging theories as to the nature of alienation. Marx says it happens in the labor process. Freud says it happens with civilization as such. Lacan says it happens with the acquisition of language. Not an easy circle to square...

But then again, as Nomad has established, I know nothing of any of these matters. So perhaps you should just ignore me.

 

[poetix]

Righteous smiting.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Ahahaha...well as it happens, I have in fact extinguished hot barbeque coals by pissing on them, and yes, it was pretty damn satisfying. Then again, I should hope it's obvious that merely prefacing some statement with the words "Freud says..." does not by any means automatically make the statement true (not that you were implying it did, of course).

Interesting, too, that Freud dates this suppression of jouissance to the start of 'civilised' (presumably meaning settled) society, which of course predates the rise of capitalism, in much of the world, by many thousands of years. Interesting, too, that certain 'primitive' tribal societies encountered by Europeans in the early modern period were, by contemporary accounts, veritable Edens of cooperation and sharing - i.e. with a notable absence of jouissance-intoxicated hooligans running around the place looting, raping, killing and pissing on fires.

 

[vimothy]

No. This isn't even in the ballpark.

Ok -- it was an honest question. It doesn't involve a discursive element (like Freudian psychoanalysis), but what does Lacanian psychoanalysis actually involve?

 

[nomadthethird]

I know that this is your favourite trope, nomad, but does anyone here actually think like this?

Yes.

My "favorite trope"?

It's yours and Mr. Tea's favorite trope, or so it seems, to try to participate in discussions of theorists you clearly haven't read extensively, or things you haven't studied, always with accusations that are beside the point and usually based on how not commonsensical theory is. (Noo. Reeally?)

 

[nomadthethird]

Righteous smiting.

Excellent.

"Hard-of-reading"

 

[nomadthethird]

Agent Nucleus: I think Mr Tea's 'unmediated experience' and counterfactuals line is a good one: authoritarian socialist states, medieval states, failing states... there is, in your view, I assume, a qualitative difference between the physical and emotional experience of life in capitalist and non-capitalist states, between exactly the same actions undertaken in different political environments and constitutional orders?

Are you sure?



But does it really, or is that just a meaningless statement that nevertheless looks quite good on paper? (Exchange value vs. use value formula is itself amusingly rather 'useless' in its original terms as an economic theory -- its exchange value in literary criticism excepted ).



Contrasted with the rest of human society, which is...?

If you can't read the sophism in these questions, especially the last two...I don't even know where to start.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Look, I've asked some completely honest-to-goodness questions in the last couple of pages, precisely because I haven't read volumes of Lacan or Zizek and would like some clarification on what they mean. I'm not trying to catch anyone out here or score some rhetorical point, I'd just like to know what is meant exactly by 'jouissance', what activities create or involve it, and how 'the system' (being civilisation, modern society, capitalism or whatever) interferes with it. Now you could, if you were interested in having a meaningful discussion, either tell me what you mean by these terms or at least point me in the direction of some definitions. But it seems you'd much rather just bitch about how heinously ignorant everyone is...

 

[nomadthethird]

OK, we've strayed pretty far from fascism, but never mind, this is interesting.

I've a question for nomad, AN or anyone else versed in Lacan: what sort of jouissance-conducive activity or experience is radically different when it happens under capitalism compared to in a non-capitalist society? Food apparently doesn't count, but what about sex? AN mentioned orgasms a few posts ago - would I be having radically psychologically different (and presumably better) sex if there was no such thing as capitalism? Or if not that then some other example, something concrete.

Jouissance isn't act specific, it's not a simple one-to-one experiential correspondence, no formula or algorithm that will get you there. The things that bar our access to jouissance are systemic and on the individual level psychological.

The problem is not that eating cheese doesn't taste as good, or that no one has orgasms anymore.

What you're not recognizing is (how many times have we gone over this in the past week?) that sexuality is not limited to orgasm seeking through vaginal intercourse (I know it's difficult for some straight men to conceive of this, but give it a go). Sexuality exists in a dynamic relationship between subject, object, and world as libido, a sort of energy flow or current that is constitutive of an individual's consciousness itself even when that person is not aroused or thinking about sex. It is a condition of our being. It is also a condition of all interpersonal relationships and even subject-object relationships.

The libido need not be a productive force (eros), it can also be a destructive force (thanatos). [Zizek, Lacan, Freud, all believe, for example, that violent acts have a libidinal register].

What is unique under capitalism is not the ability to mechanically force an orgasm, but that the psychological network, made up of all of those dynamic subject-object, subject-world, object-world, relations, that is libido has been rerouted.

Capitalism (as an assemblage of forces that work together on the fundamental level of libido) seizes on the Ego (our conscious "self" which operates according to the reality principles) and disavows the Id (our unconscious, which operates according to the pleasure principle) while replacing the voice of the father or the Super-Ego (the voice that says be moderate, hold back, etc) with the injunction [Zizek's idea, not mine] to ENJOY for the sake of enjoyment--e.g. to drink caffeine free diet cola even though it makes you thirsty, has no nutritional value, and doesn't perk you up (and tastes like shit).

The reason why we can't get off (and this is a massive oversimplification, but I'm trying to help) anymore is because our libidos have been short-circuited. All of the excessive consumption, the love as orgasm, the orgasm as commodity, the commodification of sex general, have been set up and the end result is that the Id doesn't register.

One example: now women are allowed to have sex outside of marriage, but women report very low enjoyment of sex, high "sexual dysfunction", and difficulty having orgasms. The pressure to perform up to the warped picture of female sexuality in porn, which is entirely mainstream at this point, and its ridiculous standards, is too much. And then when women can't orgasms or get off on exactly what men enjoy, they're told there's something wrong with THEM, and spinal probed with electrodes in a clinical setting under harsh lights and mechanically forced into orgasm with orgasmotrons (which still don't work most of the time). Thanks, Hi-Def porn, for making a population of women already rife with suicidal depression and body dysmorphia feel even less comfortable in their embodiment!

Another: as men get older and age naturally, and their sperm count and motility declines, and their sex drive lessens, they're now told that this is "sexual dysfunction" that must be treated with viagra or cialis, drugs that are very likely to have negative cardiac effects on a population already highly susceptible to heart disease and CV events.

You might have a stroke, but you'll be joylessly fucking someone while you do!

Make sense at all?

 

[nomadthethird]

A few years ago, there were quite a few interesting books and articles published about the effects of the porn industry on male/female sexuality. Many challenged the earlier work of Dworkin (whom I actually respect quite a bit even when I disagree with her), who feared that as porn consumption increased with technological advances and availability, that rape would become even more of a problem.

Here's one article about this by Naomi Wolf, The Porn Myth .

Remember, though, that sex isn't the only thing that has been stripped of its jouissance.

 

[Mr. Tea]

OK, thanks, I may get back when I've digested this a bit.

 

[nomadthethird]

If it would help, I could compile some relevant links, too, because there are tons and tons of online resources for learning about this stuff.

 

[vimothy]

It's yours and Mr. Tea's favorite trope, or so it seems, to try to participate in discussions of theorists you clearly haven't read extensively, or things you haven't studied, always with accusations that are beside the point and usually based on how not commonsensical theory is. (Noo. Reeally?)

This wrong across multiple dimensions.

I mean... the appeals to authority. Who are you to say what is beside the point of this thread -- and this without, I might add, ever bothering to explain what the real point is?

And who are you to set the level of engagement at which it is acceptable to develop a critical perspective? Furthermore, where exactly is this 'extensive' level? Ten papers, twenty, half his written output?

The whole premise that you have to have read someone a certain number of times (whatever that unspecified number might be) before you critique them, which is to say, before you try to understand them (what else is critique?) is false and really only a mechanism for you to shut off a debate that you yourself are not properly engaging with.

I personally do not recall ever trying "to participate in discussions of theorists" that I "haven't read". I do not even recall ever discussing any other theorists anywhere on the boards. And how patronising. I have read Zizek. He's all over the internet. Go to lacan.com. And he's on TV, in the newspapers.

As for studying -- I read English Literature at university. There was lots of theory: Marx, psychoanalysis (Freud, Klein and Lacan), Bakhtin, post-structuralism, blah, blah, blah. Who fucking cares? Only you. And it's just a pernicious, elitist lie that you have to be some uber-intellectual wank-fest who reads Hegel in German to have an opinion, as though you need the secret keys to the Gospels. "They don't understand -- unlike us clever people -- that's why they don't agree." Its a con -- a confidence trick. All theory requires is patience. And Zizek, not even that. He's certainly not beyond anyone able to post on a discussion board. Lots of literary references, but nothing too daunting -- I enjoy hearing him talk, and recommend him as a good read.

So what's really going on here? When will the theorists look to themselves? I've noted several prefacing their dismissal of Kirsch (for the record I do not agree with Kirsch that that Zizek is a fascist -- but really his crime is to not be sophisticated enough to get the joke, to be a philistine) with the phrase 'I don't even agree with Zizek, but...' Ranks close to protect against intruders. "You can't criticise Zizek -- you have to have the code". You have to speak the language. What poetix didn't go into in his post on seriousness, when discussing the brutal honesty of the 'kill paedophiles' set, is the likely reaction of the working class (indeed the rest of society) to their erstwhile liberators. Probably highly disparaging, I can imagine. So let's wall off the Hacienda. Let's retreat inside, into a supposedly impenetrable world. Just us circular few. Because more than what Zizek says -- and let's be honest, you could pick his work up and start reading from any arbitrary point and it would make little difference -- what's interesting is that here is a language, a community that tells stories, and a set of power relations -- how does Zizek interact with it and what else is it plugged into? I mean, who are we and where do we find ourselves -- isn't that what's interesting, and not this infantile I'm-right-no-I'm-right pointlessness?

 

[nomadthethird]

This wrong across multiple dimensions.

I mean... the appeals to authority. Who are you to say what is beside the point of this thread -- and this without, I might add, ever bothering to explain what the real point is?

And who are you to set the level of engagement at which it is acceptable to develop a critical perspective? Furthermore, where exactly is this 'extensive' level? Ten papers, twenty, half his written output?

The whole premise that you have to have read someone a certain number of times (whatever that unspecified number might be) before you critique them, which is to say, before you try to understand them (what else is critique?) is wrong and really only a vehicle for you to shut off a debate that you yourself are not properly engaging with.

I personally do not recall ever trying "to participate in discussions of theorists" that I "haven't read". I do not even recall ever discussing any other theorists anywhere on the boards. And how patronising. I have read Zizek. He's all over the internet. Go to lacan.com. And he's on TV, in the newspapers.

As for studying -- I read English Literature at university. There was lots of theory: Marx, psychoanalysis (Freud, Klein and Lacan), Bakhtin, post-structuralism, blah, blah, blah. Who fucking cares? Only you. And it's just a pernicious, elitist lie that you have to be some uber-intellectual wank-fest who reads Hegel in German to have an opinion, as though you need the secret keys to the Gospels. "They don't understand -- unlike us clever people -- that's why they don't agree." Its a con -- a confidence trick. All theory requires is patience. And Zizek, not even that. He's certainly not beyond anyone able to post on a discussion board. Lots of literary references, but nothing too daunting -- I enjoy hearing him talk, and recommend him as a good read.

So what's really going on here? When will the theorists look to themselves? I've noted several prefacing their dismissal of Kirsch (for the record I do not agree with Kirsch that that Zizek is a fascist -- but really his crime is to not be sophisticated enough to get the joke) with the phrase 'I don't even agree with Zizek, but...' Ranks close to protect against intruders. "You can't criticise Zizek -- you have to have the code". You have to speak the language. What poetix didn't go into in his post on seriousness, when discussing the brutal honesty of the 'kill paedophiles' set, is the likely reaction of the working class (indeed the rest of society) to their erstwhile liberators. Probably highly disparaging, I can imagine. So let's wall off the Hacienda. Let's retreat inside, into a supposedly impenetrable world. Just us circular few. Because more than what Zizek says -- and let's be honest, you could pick his work up and start reading from any arbitrary point and it would make little difference -- what's interesting is that here is a language, a community that tells stories, and a set of power relations -- how does Zizek interact with it and what else is it plugged into? I mean, who are we and where do we find ourselves -- isn't that what's interesting, and not this infantile I'm-right-no-I'm-right pointlessness?

Yawn.

Vimothy, it's clear you have not read much psychoanalysis in this and many other threads.

Apparently Zizek *is* too difficult for some of the people who've been posting here to read, as evidenced by this bullshit "fascist" namecalling fest.

You can post whatever you like. I don't have to think it's interesting.

 

[nomadthethird]

It's fine to ask questions when something is unclear, in the interest of furthering discussion, but it's often that I get the sense some posters here are only trying to drop little dismissal bombs into threads without really engaging with the topics whatsoever. This happens most often in any discussion of theorists who have any sort of Marxist or psychoanalytical allegiances.

If you have a problem with Marxism, start a thread about that. If you think all Marxists are fascists, fine. It just seems every discussion here loses its potential at exactly the point at which people veer off topic only to patly dismiss theorists or their theories for broad reasons really unrelated to what they've actually said. Any attempt to clear up misconceptions is then read as "elitism." Yes, it's frustrating. It's annoying to watch people flagrantly take statements out of context to prove so-and-so is a fascist, or is writing in bad faith, or is a narcissist, or whatever. Especially when you know for a fact that is not how they are, and you repeatedly point out why. To no avail.

There are some threads here lately that I think have been very good and productive discussions. I think this forum, given its participants, has the potential to be much better than it often is.

 

[nomadthethird]

There was lots of theory: Marx, psychoanalysis (Freud, Klein and Lacan), Bakhtin, post-structuralism, blah, blah, blah. Who fucking cares? Only you.

Yes, of course, I'm the only one who cares about this kind of thing. Obviously.

If you don't care, you could always refrain from posting on a thread.

And it's just a pernicious, elitist lie that you have to be some uber-intellectual wank-fest who reads Hegel in German to have an opinion, as though you need the secret keys to the Gospels.

If I were having a rhinoplasty, you might have an opinion regarding the best way to break my bridge, but that wouldn't make you right. I'd prefer to have a plastic surgeon tell me his opinion.

Some people *are* more well-versed in some things. You know more about micro-economics than I probably ever will. So when I don't know about something you're talking about, I either ask or sit back and listen.