Fascism!

[Agent]

OK, sure, this makes a good deal of sense. But it seems more like a criticism of a particular aspect of consumer culture, rather than of capitalism per se; after all, there are (and have been) capitalist societies where porn is not ubiquitous. Victorian Britain, for example - porn certainly existed but it was illicit, black market (and, as a function of the sexual repression of that society, appropriately depraved...); most people would have gone their whole lives without ever seeing any. I mean, we're talking about a culture that considered a woman's naked ankle obscene. Yet that society was the very model of aristos-and-bourgeoisie-exploiting-the-proles that inspired Marx and Engels in the first place. Naomi Wolf makes the point that it was a lot different even in the '70s, when Playboy was the gold standard of jerking material, before you could access terabytes of smut at a finger-tap.

Zizek talks about the connection between consumerism and the regulation of jouissance in a lot of depth in Looking Awry and elsewhere. This probably deserves its own thread. Basically consumer culture becomes the subject's "sinthome" or constitutive symptom (it would take ages to explain Lacan's concept of the sinthome - it is the fourth register that emerges when the Imaginary dissolves and the subject is fragmented into bits of language - has a lot to do with topology). The sinthome is what makes each person an individual. It's the subject's unique set of tics/symptoms. Consumer culture replaces the sinthome so it mass-produces subjectivity. Zizek equates it with stupidity. Late capitalism keeps us protected from the real. Baudrillard compares it to the "boy in the bubble" in The Transparency o f Evil. At least 1/4 of that book is about immunology (AIDS, cancer, sanitation). The simulacrum is like a substitute or artificial immune system for the extended nervous system.

Jouissance doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex. It's a traumatic/ecstatic (in the Greek sense) encounter with "the real," or undifferentiated matter and energy. The concept is at least partly based on Eastern mysticism and the influence of Surrealism.

 

[Agent]

Lacan: the essays or lectures on the sinthome would be really pertinent, since it is here that Lacan switches things up and claims that the aims of analysis are a greater identification of a subject with its symptoms.

i have a bootleg translation of Seminar 23 if you are interested. It has never been translated into English b/c of a copywright dispute with Lacan's family/executors. Lots of excellent topological diagrams I love Lacan's use of formulas, algorithms, visuals, etc.

 

[Mr. Tea]

(it would take ages to explain Lacan's concept of the sinthome - it is the fourth register that emerges when the Imaginary dissolves and the subject is fragmented into bits of language - has a lot to do with topology).

OIC.

Jouissance doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex. It's a traumatic/ecstatic (in the Greek sense) encounter with "the real," or undifferentiated matter and energy. The concept is at least partly based on Eastern mysticism and the influence of Surrealism.

Yeah, it sounds a lot like the 'direct experience' central to Buddhism and especially Zen.

 

[nomadthethird]

i have a bootleg translation of Seminar 23 if you are interested. It has never been translated into English b/c of a copywright dispute with Lacan's family/executors. Lots of excellent topological diagrams I love Lacan's use of formulas, algorithms, visuals, etc.

Definitely, thnx. I just reread Ecrits since it's one of the only books I brought with me, not expecting to get a 10 month sentence.

 

[scottdisco]

watching tv coverage of the protests by the Bank of England, i saw a placard being held by somebody on which was written Stop this march to fascism.

 

[crackerjack]

watching tv coverage of the protests by the Bank of England, i saw a placard being held by somebody on which was written Stop this march to fascism.

I've just got back from there.

Some silly placards, but stupider policing. they wouldn't let anyone out of the protest. Result: a crowd of about 3-4000 (?) of whom only about 300 wanted to stay later than 1-ish. Eeverywhere you looked there were cordons to stop people getting out and another one behind to stop them getting in.

After about 90 mins of getting really pissed off and bored (and having finished the Obsever Sport Mag which i took with me for company) I joined a group which broke through the cordon onto cheapside and got a tube from st Pauls just as the riot vans arrived in force. OOne panicked copper started shouting at people to clear the area. He didn't appear to understand the irony.

 

[craner]

Just finished reading this, which I thoroughly recommend; not only one of the best biographies I've ever read, but also one of the best books about Fascism (Universal or otherwise).

 

[nikbee]

In a manner quite similar to William F. Buckley's old statement that the cultural mission of the National Review was to "Stand athwart history, yelling Stop."

Here is a link to the statement:

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/buckley200406290949.asp

Interesting, I think, how much of it can be applied to Zizek's own approach.

so this is what stuck out most after reading the whole thread.

if you think that "standing athwart history, yelling stop" is what zizek has to do, then im really not sure you are understanding the ethical imperative of zizek, badiou.

i have to paraphrase here, too lazy to find the pages and whatnot, though if you push me, i will.. regarding badious notion of the One vs. the Two. the One seeks a unity, peace, a dialectical synthesis of contradictory terms. this is the conservative position. the Two states that dialectics is the genesis of antagonism, a radical break in the fabric. an infinite dialectical tension. and what is at stake here is radical or revolutionary subjectivity itself.. This was written in Badiou's 'The Century' as a diagnosis of a 20th century subjectivity.. but is this not what we need now? isnt this the point they try to illustrate with all the Maoist/Leninist 'returns', after late-capitalist postmodern relativism?

how about this, Badiou: "Man, as immortal, is sustained by the incalculable and the un-possessed. He is sustained by non-being. To forbid him to imagine the Good, to devote his collective powers to it, to work towards the realization of unknown possibilities, to think what might be in terms that break radically with what is, is quite simply to forbid him humanity as such."

anything that calls for a finitude, a totality, a conservative unity is Evil.

this is the basic 'point de capiton' (imperative: "Keep Going!") for both zizek and badiou, no?

 

[josef k.]

I find this photograph of Badiou very interesting.

He looks like the King.

 

[nomadthethird]

I find this photograph of Badiou very interesting.

He looks like the King.

I think he looks skeptical, like he's weighing something in his mind or just listening intently.

He looks so much like my paternal grandfather (from Quebec) that it's hard for me to look at him without relating the two somehow in my mind. And my grandfather was no philosopher, he was a military man and entrepreneur.

 

[nomadthethird]

so this is what stuck out most after reading the whole thread.

if you think that "standing athwart history, yelling stop" is what zizek has to do, then im really not sure you are understanding the ethical imperative of zizek, badiou.

i have to paraphrase here, too lazy to find the pages and whatnot, though if you push me, i will.. regarding badious notion of the One vs. the Two. the One seeks a unity, peace, a dialectical synthesis of contradictory terms. this is the conservative position. the Two states that dialectics is the genesis of antagonism, a radical break in the fabric. an infinite dialectical tension. and what is at stake here is radical or revolutionary subjectivity itself.. This was written in Badiou's 'The Century' as a diagnosis of a 20th century subjectivity.. but is this not what we need now? isnt this the point they try to illustrate with all the Maoist/Leninist 'returns', after late-capitalist postmodern relativism?

how about this, Badiou: "Man, as immortal, is sustained by the incalculable and the un-possessed. He is sustained by non-being. To forbid him to imagine the Good, to devote his collective powers to it, to work towards the realization of unknown possibilities, to think what might be in terms that break radically with what is, is quite simply to forbid him humanity as such."

anything that calls for a finitude, a totality, a conservative unity is Evil.

this is the basic 'point de capiton' (imperative: "Keep Going!") for both zizek and badiou, no?

Interesting but I wish it weren't about the one OR the two, I wish it were about thousands or millions or infinity or something.

Thinking only of the two seems quite vulnerable to simple reactionary thinking or to being defined only in opposition to another. That affords too much power to the other thing you're trying to radically oppose, imo.

 

[josef k.]

He looks very wise, and idealized.

The philosopher-king.

Also, like my paternal grandfather.

 

[nikbee]

Interesting but I wish it weren't about the one OR the two, I wish it were about thousands or millions or infinity or something.

Thinking only of the two seems quite vulnerable to simple reactionary thinking or to being defined only in opposition to another. That affords too much power to the other thing you're trying to radically oppose, imo.

the two does stand for infinity (an infinite dialectical tension, mao's 'unity-criticism-unity'). im not sure youre understanding the concept, or im not understanding you. the imperative "keep going!" is infinity against conservative totality and cynicism.

this does not leave any room for relativism whatsoever. it is universal, but towards an absolute affirmation towards the Two. to take another badiou example: the debate with fascism v communism. fascism is a destruction of the corruption of man, of its inauthenticity. it is a return to a man of old. race, nation, family, etc.. for communism it is creation. a communist is in opposition to all totalities (race, nation, family, etc..). a communist subject is therefore a radical/revolutionary subject.. "One divides into Two". perpetually, always, infinitely.. "to think what might be in terms that break radically with what is". and in constant opposition to conservative and finite forces.

 

[vimothy]

in opposition to all totalities

Exactly -- the philosopher-king.

 

[nomadthethird]

the two does stand for infinity (an infinite dialectical tension, mao's 'unity-criticism-unity'). im not sure youre understanding the concept, or im not understanding you. the imperative "keep going!" is infinity against conservative totality and cynicism.

this does not leave any room for relativism whatsoever. it is universal, but towards an absolute affirmation towards the Two. to take another badiou example: the debate with fascism v communism. fascism is a destruction of the corruption of man, of its inauthenticity. it is a return to a man of old. race, nation, family, etc.. for communism it is creation. a communist is in opposition to all totalities (race, nation, family, etc..). a communist subject is therefore a radical/revolutionary subject.. "One divides into Two". perpetually, always, infinitely.. "to think what might be in terms that break radically with what is". and in constant opposition to conservative and finite forces.

A dialectical tension might extend into infinity, but it is ultimately a sort of univocal procedure, not a polyvocal one. I have problems with this. And with absolutism.

I smell Hegel.

I have a hard time making much of a distinction between communism as it's been enacted/practiced/enforced/lived in the past (in historical communist regimes) and fascism. Communists seem to be in favor of all kinds of totalities, most obviously, the Party.

How do you make a "radical break" with "what is" when you are what is, i.e., you are completely entrenched in a system that is greater than yourself and that sustains you?

 

[nikbee]

A dialectical tension might extend into infinity, but it is ultimately a sort of univocal procedure, not a polyvocal one. I have problems with this. And with absolutism.

I smell Hegel.

I have a hard time making much of a distinction between communism as it's been enacted/practiced/enforced/lived in the past (in historical communist regimes) and fascism. Communists seem to be in favor of all kinds of totalities, most obviously, the Party.

How do you make a "radical break" with "what is" when you are what is, i.e., you are completely entrenched in a system that is greater than yourself and that sustains you?

badious hypothesis is that the forms of communism that took place, and failed, in 20th century were a betrayal of the communist hypothesis..

what youre saying is too easy.. youre certainly right, as far as im concerned, with the criticism towards State Communism .. but to claim that fascist statism and communist statism were equal is crazy.. you must see the revolutionary (universal) core of, whatever, theres a million examples here, Bolshevism in its historical constellation. Communism represents an attempt to create a whole new historical and political universe. fascism is totality inscribed as totality. Communism strives for emancipation, fascism for nation/race, to put it as basically as possible.

and totality needs to be separated from totalitarian. by totality badiou implies essentially a finitude, not totality relating to the State as such (unless the state really is the finitude). the problem with State is a serious one, thats not been resolved, not with 20th century communism, obviously, but maintaining or reinscribing the emancipatory core of communism is imperative.

im afraid youre still not seeing the implications of badious ethics. let me try another example, still related to the One vs the Two. this is all from one chapter in The Century, its really worth reading. this is essentially straight from the book:

Chinese Cultural revolution: here badiou threads his idea of the One and the Two directly. Mao (the Two), believed that the socialist state must not be the policed and police-like end of mass politics, but rather, act as a stimulus towards unleashing it. Deng Xiaoping (the One) believed - since economic management is the prinicpal aspect of things - popular mobilizations were more nefarious than necessary. Mao's position at the top of the party was at stake here. The militants of the Cultural Revolution never stopped quoting Lenin's declaration, according to which in the final analysis 'the problem is that of power'.

Thus, China today.....

 

[nomadthethird]

No, what you're saying is too easy.

You know that "dialectical struggle" between the cosmic forces of Good

and Evil

? That's the war machine, writ large. Why you'd think that spending your entire life and all your intellectual energy being an apologist for the war machine is beyond me.

The Right and the Left are doubles--except one side has the balls to call its own acts of violence "war", even if its precepts are based on an internal inconsistency for propagation. The other hides behind "revolution" (you know, slaughtering anybody who has the misfortune of being born or made wealthy and setting up the party leaders as a new bureaucratic state-apparatus--Kafka's prophetic nightmare!) and just keeps plowing through reason and rationality with literal stabs at "equality" that always end up turning, rather ironically, into totalitarian regimes.

Shit is absurd. Revolution doesn't "emancipate" anyone. Look for a new master, and you'll find one. For communists, their new master usually ends up looking like Kim Jong-il.

Capital takes the place of the phallic center [God], and the same stupid conflicts rage on, and on, and on.

This kind of paralyzed thinking is what we need to move past, not what we need to stagnate in... these are not flames we need to continuously fan in order to redeem ourselves according to some Book of Holy Abstractions.​

 

[nomadthethird]

The State is power, in all its hideous, monstrous lack of glory.

Go ahead, "emancipate" yourself from this state by creating a new one (I'm not holding my breath waiting for that one...). Just don't pretend that saying the world "equality" over and over again will change the fact that you're on State's little leash if you do.

 

[nomadthethird]

Oh yeah, and nothing is "universal" either.

Why don't we just all dress up like it's 1850 and work in factories, too? While we're fetishizing industrialism and pretending culture and science haven't progressed past positivism...might as well...

I'd like to hear those "million examples", please...

The Crusades? The Inquisition? Or weren't those True Scotsman, I mean, true believers either?

 

[craner]

That was fantastic Nomad.