|
d63
Stranger


Registered: 12/29/11
Posts: 110
Loc: The Midwest, U.S.
Last seen: 9 years, 7 days
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: d63]
#20637657 - 09/29/14 08:57 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
What taught me the most about fascism was the Rwandan genocide;
It started w/ the Belgium colony that divided them into 2 classes: the hutus that had the hard features of normal Africans and the Tutsi's (with sleeker features that were more appealing to the Belgiums (who were given more privileges than the Hutus.
Now, knowing human nature, is there any doubt in your mind that that Tutsi's (from time to time ( abused that advantage?
This is not to justify what the Hutu's did. I just want you to understand why they did it and why you are perfectly capable of it.
-------------------- I refuse to be taken seriously. Take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru, just someone to play with.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: d63] 1
#20638457 - 09/30/14 12:12 AM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
What irritates me most about your philosophical discourse (and don't get me wrong, you present a great discourse), is that you never close your left parentheses. (((
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 8 months
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: d63]
#20638635 - 09/30/14 02:11 AM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d63 said: What taught me the most about fascism was the Rwandan genocide;
It started w/ the Belgium colony that divided them into 2 classes: the hutus that had the hard features of normal Africans and the Tutsi's (with sleeker features that were more appealing to the Belgiums (who were given more privileges than the Hutus.
that is your perception and description. 'your features are "hard". 'Your features are "sleek"'
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,851
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: deCypher]
#20638764 - 09/30/14 04:11 AM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: What irritates me most about your philosophical discourse (and don't get me wrong, you present a great discourse), is that you never close your left parentheses. (((
it belies a wish to have more meaning embedded in your meaning (such that one may add a thought into their thought (as well as sharing that thought (or at least appearing to want to share))) If it were in the original German, all the verbs would get piled up at the end of a sentence and you would finally get the meaning that had been building up.
--------------------
_ đ§ _
|
d63
Stranger


Registered: 12/29/11
Posts: 110
Loc: The Midwest, U.S.
Last seen: 9 years, 7 days
|
|
"And it is useless to try to redeem âtotalitarianismâ through division into subcategories (emphasizing the difference between the Fascist and the Communist variety): the moment one accepts the notion of âtotalitarianismâ, one is firmly located within the liberal-democratic horizon. 1 The contention of this book is thus that the notion of âtotalitarianismâ, far from being an effective theoretical concept , is a kind of stopgap: instead of enabling us to think, forcing us to acquire a new insight into the historical reality it describes, it relieves us of the duty to think, or even actively prevents us from thinking."
"â the moment one shows the slightest inclination to engage in political projects that aim seriously to challenge the existing order, the answer is immediately: âBenevolent as it is, this will necessarily end in a new Gulag!â The âreturn to ethicsâ in todayâs political philosophy shamefully exploits the horrors of Gulag or Holocaust as the ultimate bogey for blackmailing us into renouncing all serious radical engagement. In this way, conformist liberal scoundrels can find hypocritical satisfaction in their defence of the existing order: they know there is corruption, exploitation, and so on, but every attempt to change things is denounced as ethically dangerous and unacceptable, resuscitating the ghost of âtotalitarianismâ." -Zizek, Slavoj (2014-04-08). Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: 5 Interventions in the (Mis)Use of a Notion (The Essential Zizek) (Kindle Locations 99-105). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.
Now think about it: given the way that global producer/consumer Capitalism is undermining our democracies while making it SEEM as if our democracies are still intact, doesnât it seem possible that a benign dictator might actually be better at giving us an authentic experience of freedom by being able to do what they think is best for people (that is being a person themselves (rather than the system we have now that deludes us into believing we are electing people who represent our interests when, in fact, all they are actually representing is the interest of their country club buddies?
Of course, we should take pause at this because as Hollywood (the so-called leftist conspiracy (repeatedly tells us: while power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The notion, according to Hollywood, is that no matter how well intended a dictator may start out, they will always end up in folly. But how do we actually confirm this assertion?
And this is not to assert that we should necessarily look to a dictatorship as the answer to our problems. It is simply to point out that liberal democracy may not be the ultimate antidote to oppressive social and political systems that weâre led to believe it is, especially when you consider the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy that weâre dealing with now via global producer/consumer Capitalism.
Of course, thinking this way, of thinking outside the so-called box, puts us at a risk that, as Zizek rightly points out, even the academic so-called left are willing to avoid by keeping their arguments within the perimeters of producer/consumer Capitalism.
They, like the rest of us, have fallen under the spell of defining totalitarianism as what happened in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia when, in fact, true totalitarianism cannot actually exist. Think about it: the only real totalitarianism we have experienced is in fiction such as Orwellâs 1984 or Margaret Atwoodâs The Handmaid Tale.
But allow me to make a point based on personal experience: when 1984 actually came along, we all breathed a sigh of relief that it didnât fulfill the Orwellian vision. But at that very time, L.A. was chasing the hookers off Sunset Boulevard and closing down Glendora Mountain road (a favorite party spot on weekends (while Nancy Reagan was repeatedly saying âjust say no to drugsâ, thereby taking part in the initiation of the war on drugs (that is along w/Joe Biden who was screaming for the creation of a drug czar (while her husband, Ronny, was overseeing the beginning of a reactionary movement (motivated by us finding ourselves in the economic shadow of Japan (and the economic movement based on the philosophy of Freidman and Greenspan: all of which haunts us to this day in very real forms of oppression.
The point is (and I believe this is the point that Zizek is trying to make in this book (we need to let go of the term âtotalitarianismâ (something that has only existed in works of fiction (and start focusing on the forms of oppression we are actually dealing with.
-------------------- I refuse to be taken seriously. Take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru, just someone to play with.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,851
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: d63]
#20644913 - 10/01/14 04:20 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
the verbs, all the meaning is in those missing verbs at the end of the compound sentence
--------------------
_ đ§ _
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 8 months
|
|
the last thing we need is a dictator. In fact that is what the oligarchy we have is. the continuation OF the dictator
|
d63
Stranger


Registered: 12/29/11
Posts: 110
Loc: The Midwest, U.S.
Last seen: 9 years, 7 days
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: zzripz]
#20649492 - 10/02/14 04:20 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
âThe last thing we need is a dictator. In fact that is what the oligarchy we have is. the continuation OF the dictatorâ
Yeah, it's a form of dictatorship based on a kind of parliament of aristocrats that over-rides and controls the democracies of the people: that which is suppose to look out for our interests.
And I understand, zz, that the word "dictator" strikes fear in the hearts of most people. I'm scared of it myself. And I'm not saying we should turn to one. All I'm saying is that the only thing that may be able to deal with the beast we are facing is the good fortune of actually finding a benign dictator that can take us out of the inverted totalitarianism we are dealing with (in which economics is given privilege over state (by casting aside the illusions that producer/consumer Capitalism has cast over us and putting state back into its proper role: that as check and balance (for our sake (to corporate power.
You need to understand that in order to push back the power that the aristocracy/oligarchy (the economic coup ( has accumulated, everything has to be on the table: running from an expansion of the public economy, to socialism, and to outright communism if that is what it takes. This is because (and make no mistake about it (the rich will do everything they can to maintain their privilege at our expense.
To give you sense of the urgency involved, you have to consider a point made by Chris Hedges: that what we are dealing with now is a kind of inverted totalitarianism (and I hate to use that term given the study Iâm in now (in which the market is given privilege over state: that in which our present aristocrats/oligarchs are validated by the market: the fact that we buy the products that allow them the wealth and power they have. Now compare that to classical totalitarianism where state is given privilege over the market.
Now think about the situation we are in now economically: one in which the differential between the exchange value of everything and the actual buying power it creates is so large that there is no possible way it can sustain a respectable economy. This is why our economy is no longer based on what we can afford to buy, it is now based, via credit, on what we may be able to afford in the future. Now what happens when that flow of exchange collapses and the market is no longer there to justify the privilege of the aristocracy/oligarchy? Do you think they are just going to give it up, say âgame overâ, and walk away from that privilege?
Or is the more likely possibility that theyâll turn to classical totalitarianism by giving the state (which they own, BTW, along with the military (privilege? The scenario Iâm waiting for is some Republican suggesting that people who are in debt, rather than turn to bankruptcy, turn themselves over to slavery until their âdebt is paidâ. It might also be suggested as a more practical alternative to welfare and unemployment.
(And, BTW, I do believe that the Republicans (along with the tea party (the brownshirt appendix to the repugs ( are that smug, obtuse, hateful, and evil. There is no doubt in my mind about how low they would go to protect the interests of their country-club buddies.)
Now maybe Iâm wrong. And I actually hope I am. But then maybe the radical possibility of a benign dictator may be the only hope we have given where our liberal democracies seem to be leading us.
-------------------- I refuse to be taken seriously. Take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru, just someone to play with.
|
d63
Stranger


Registered: 12/29/11
Posts: 110
Loc: The Midwest, U.S.
Last seen: 9 years, 7 days
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: d63]
#20675910 - 10/08/14 03:35 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
âThe embodiment of this surplus is the toothpaste tube whose last third is differently coloured , with âYOU GET 30% FREE!â in large letters â in such a situation I am always tempted to say: âOK then, give me only this free 30 per cent of the toothpaste!â In capitalism, the definition of the âproper priceâ is a discount price. The worn-out designation âconsumer societyâ thus holds only if one conceives of consumption as the mode of appearance of its very opposite, thrift. Here, we should return to Hamlet and to ritual value: ritual is ultimately the ritual of sacrifice which opens up the space for generous consumption â after we have sacrificed to the gods the innermost parts of the slaughtered animal (heart, intestines), we are free to enjoy a hearty meal of the remaining meat. Instead of enabling free consumption without sacrifice, the modern âtotal economyâ which wants to dispense with this âsuperfluousâ ritualized sacrifice generates the paradoxes of thrift â there is no generous consumption; consumption is allowed only in so far as it functions as the form of appearance of its opposite. And was not Nazism precisely a desperate attempt to restore ritual value to its proper place through the Holocaust, that gigantic sacrifice to the âobscure godsâ, as Lacan put it in Seminar XI? Quite appropriately, the sacrificed object was the Jew, the very embodiment of the capitalist paradoxes of thrift. Fascism is to be situated in the series of attempts to counter this capitalist logic: apart from the Fascist corporatist attempt to âre-establish the balanceâ by cutting off the excess embodied in the âJewâ, we could mention the different versions of the attempt to restore the premodern sovereign gesture of pure expenditure â recall the figure of the junkie, the only true âsubject of consumptionâ, the only one who consumes himself utterly, to his very death, in his unbound jouissance.â -Zizek, Slavoj (2014-04-08). Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: 5 Interventions in the (Mis)Use of a Notion (The Essential Zizek) (Kindle Locations 664-681). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.
Now in order to get at what is at work here, we first have to understand the Economics 101 concept of the Paradox of Thrift. On one hand, despite the popular doxa and mythology among Republicans and Neo-Cons that investment is the driver of a strong economy, the only real driver in the real world is demand. I mean all the investment in the world isnât going to do shit for us if no one has the money to buy the product. On the other hand, when it comes to the struggles of the poor under producer/consumer Capitalism, the Capitalist must defer to the alibi of free-will and thrift:
âIf you would have spent your life âputting a little backâ, you might be able to enjoy a better retirement at a younger age.â
And the problem here is rooted in an inherent contradiction that lies within the very logic of Capitalism itself. If you ask a Capitalist about the power that the rich can accumulate with their wealth and the exploitation of both consumers and producers that is sure to follow, they will resort to arguments about the god-like entity of the Invisible Hand of the market: that it will counter any negative effect on your average producer/consumer. But when you bring up the misfortunes of your average producer/consumer, the whole conversation switches to an issue of free-will and self determination. But which is it? Either this god-like entity of the Invisible Hand has the power to overcome the actions and excesses of the rich, in which case it is perfectly capable of overcoming the actions of the average producer/consumer. Or it does not, in which case the free-will and actions of the Capitalist are perfectly capable of overcoming the efforts of the average producer/consumer. Either way, the average producer/consumer is perfectly screwed âdespite what the mythology of Capitalism might lead us to believe.
And the marketing strategy of â30% moreâ is how Capitalism overcomes the Paradox of Thrift by enfolding it within an act of consumption much as Starbucks does social responsibility.
The truth is that producer/consumer Capitalism is far more dependent on consumption than what we gain through production, to the point of not being just dependant on the buying power we have from production at any given time, but from the buying power we might gain in the future: hence our economyâs high dependence on credit. The other truth is that if everyone engaged in thrift (the moral imperative that Capitalism pimps as alibi (our economy would collapse almost immediately. I would point to the last point made in the quote:
ââ recall the figure of the junkie, the only true âsubject of consumptionâ, the only one who consumes himself utterly, to his very death, in his unbound Jouissance.â -Ibid
Note here, for instance, the denial that drives the willingness of Capitalists to keep the consumption going in the face of man-made global warming and the ultimate depletion of our natural resources. How can we not think of Capitalism as anything more than a sickness? We focus, in our discourses, on how despicable lawyers are. But many of them are actually working for just causes such as the ACLU and labor and environmental issues. What are business men and marketers doing but administrating the Land of the Lotos Eaters we presently find ourselves in? The brilliant point that Zizek makes here is in pointing out how the dynamic can be traced to pre-Capitalist forms of social organization. When it comes to Capitalism as a form of oppression, there is nothing new under the sun. It simply utilizes old forms in more subtle ways: such as the old divine right theory that now manifests as âthe market has spokenâ when it comes to the rich.
In other words, no matter what ideological flag we fly, there will always be a handful of people who think they deserve a little more than everyone else, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else. And therefore, the role of the dissident: the artist, the poet, the philosopher, the intellectual: will always be secure.
-------------------- I refuse to be taken seriously. Take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru, just someone to play with.
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 8 months
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: d63]
#20678224 - 10/09/14 02:29 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
they maintain their hold via violence and mind control. This is a big reason I am all the time learning about mind control so as to undermine it, because when you start becoming aware of it you are simultaneously undermining it. A big example, if you see through their war propaganda, you will not buy it, and if you have kids you will tell them all about it and they wont buy it
So you do all that, and there is still the violence. true, but at least now the chains from within are braking. You are beginning to so things a bit clearer
Another things. Their corporate advertizing industry works in the very same way as other fear-based mind control. In order to sell you products and have you as a chronic 'consumer' they devise ways to make you fear and then off their solution, whatever the product is they are pushing. So the overall formula is FEAR SOLUTION
That is exactly how their phony 'war on terror' was brought about and is maintained. Even the name of the day is linked psychologically to the American emergency number when you are in fear and ring 9 1 1
University students protested in the States a while ago. All sat peacefully on the ground and you see this smug ugly fat thug/policeman spray a row of them with mace spray right in their faces. VIOLENCE. And of course there happens worse. And those are the thugs who protect that very small elite with cast fortunes. And many people are miserable with this existence and are put on psychiatric meds.
Checkout these two recent videos I have recently seen:
If People Understood This One Thing, We Would Have Revolution Overnight
The Reset Button Movement - Paradigm Shift Video
Edited by zzripz (10/09/14 02:30 AM)
|
d63
Stranger


Registered: 12/29/11
Posts: 110
Loc: The Midwest, U.S.
Last seen: 9 years, 7 days
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: zzripz]
#20680518 - 10/09/14 03:55 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
âI stand by Ayn Rand. I reread some of her writing on and she is profound and truthful. It is pointless for me to try to convince anyone of this - she is hated as the Great Satan of Greed. But she only opposed the banal form of Christian pathos, of all - consuming (literally) equality. â
First of all: as you should. I mean we all gotta find our flow.
Secondly: it seems we find some common ground in that Marx is considered the great Satan of egalitarianism as well as the primary blame for the atrocities of both Stalin and Mao Tse Tong.
And finally: what weâre both probably dealing with is the misuse (much as happened with Nietzsche (of our respective heroes. As I like to say:
Ideology does nothing; people, however, do.
The problem for me, however, is that Rand seemed pretty clear on her assumption that the only way anyone could achieve âself valuingâ was through Capitalism and clearly rejected Marxism (perhaps because of her reactionary sentiment towards having come from Stalinist Russia (as a means of people finding (to put it in Maslowâs terms: self actualization. Plus that, it became pretty clear to me in Atlas Shrugged II (the movie version (that anyone who attempted to pass policy that interfered with the workings of the market was basically a âlooterâ: much as Jews were âRatsâ to the Nazis and Tutsieâs were âcockroachesâ to the Hutus. And while it may well be impossible for me to ply you from your embrace of Rand, it would be equally difficult for you to convince me that there was not a fascist element in her use of the term. Or are you going to try to tell me that she didnât actually use it in the book?
The interesting thing here, though, is the common ground between Rand and Marx. You and Iona argue, in the typical KTS fashion of the Neo-Nietzscheian gospel , that it is ultimately about people finding their higher selves. But letâs try a perfectly valid description of Karl Marx (one that Zizek actually fits:
A guy that found his higher self and was willing to sacrifice (live in poverty (to create a society in which everyone could find their higher selves as compared to submitting themselves to the role that producer/consumer Capitalism imposes on them. And while Marx may have suggested a final end (communism ( that was egalitarian in nature, it was merely an even playing field in which individuals could freely work towards their different levels of achievement. Now granted: Zizek may not have made quite the sacrifice that Marx did. But I would far rather see a man or woman (such as Zizek, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, or Melanie Klein (get rich looking out for the little guy as compared the sociopathic approach of entitlement such as that of Gene Simmons, Jack Welch, or even Rand. The former just seem more heroic (in a very Nietzscheian sense (than the latter. This makes the following feel like petty nit-picking:
âEvery so-called progressive or leftist or socialist type is basically just operating by a fake psychological mechanism of partial denial of self-valuing in order to gain some self-value in other ways, but none had the strength to truly live their philosophy of deliberate lack and rejection of excess. Leftist and communists who rise in social position or wealth always gather luxury and vanity around themselves. â
Now hereâs the problem with this: no one is denying that the progressive or the leftist or the socialist is acting out of self interest. They (like Marx (are basically seeking a world that would accommodate people like them: the intellectually and creatively curious. The main difference is that they have moved to the next evolutionary step of the cooperative model in recognizing that looking out for the interest of others is, ultimately, in their interest (of putting their baser impulses in cooperation with their higher cognitive functions: that which the meat of the brain has evolved into (and moving beyond the competitive model which puts our higher cognitive functions in the service of our baser impulses: that, BTW, which leads to the really bad reasoning above - along w/ our possible extinction via producer/consumer Capitalism.
It is, as far as I'm concerned, the distinction between using intellectual pursuit as a way to make the world better (the cooperative model (and simply engaging in a pissing contest (the competitive model.
-------------------- I refuse to be taken seriously. Take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru, just someone to play with.
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 8 months
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: d63]
#20682728 - 10/10/14 02:28 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And while it may well be impossible for me to ply you from your embrace of Rand,
Is this aimed at me...? I hate and loathe that fukin soulless bitch
|
d63
Stranger


Registered: 12/29/11
Posts: 110
Loc: The Midwest, U.S.
Last seen: 9 years, 7 days
|
Re: Zizek Studies: [Re: zzripz]
#20785130 - 11/02/14 06:03 PM (9 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's odd that Zizek (as far as I know or have read (never mentions Foucault: especially given Foucault's emphasis on the relationship between so-called knowledge and power: what strikes me as a form of hegemony. As I like to say:
The minute someone brings up such words as rational or reason or objective, you have to ask 2 questions:
By which criteria is an assertion deemed to rational, reasonable, or objective?
And who has the power to define these criteria?
Now as far as the last term, objective, Zizek does deal with this in The Plague of Fantasies (I believe that is the book ( when he (in perhaps a Hegelian manner (synthesizes the mind/body (subjective/objective (dichotomy into the subjectively objective and objectively subjective -which makes perfect sense to me. And he does bring up the issue of authority as defined by the power structure: the one who is suppose to know.
Still, Foucault, despite the obvious relationship, is never brought up.
-------------------- I refuse to be taken seriously. Take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru, just someone to play with.
|
|