Quote note (#201)

Apologies for the Quote note spam, but this is just too exquisite to pass over. It’s Žižek melting-down spectacularly under pressure. Quasi-random sample:

What should people in Haiti and other places with food shortages do? Do they not have the full right to violently rebel?

— Oh sure, you’ve got the solution right there.

This is the true squeal of anguish:

… corporate capitalism has triumphed worldwide. In fact, the Third World nations that embrace this world order are those now growing at a spectacular rate. The mask of cultural diversity is sustained by the actual universalism of global capital; even better if global capitalism’s political supplement relies on so-called “Asian values.” […] Global capitalism has no problem in accommodating itself to a plurality of local religions, cultures and traditions. So the irony of anti-Eurocentrism is that, on behalf of anti-colonialism, one criticizes the West at the very historical moment when global capitalism no longer needs Western cultural values in order to smoothly function. In short, one tends to reject Western cultural values at the very time when, critically reinterpreted, many of those values (egalitarianism, fundamental rights, freedom of the press, the welfare-state, etc.) can serve as a weapon against capitalist globalization. Did we already forget that the entire idea of Communist emancipation as envisaged by Marx is a thoroughly “Eurocentric” one?

“Comrades! — We’re obliterating ourselves.” Indeed, yes.

ADDED: Another piece of delicious high-IQ Leftist meltdown. Everything is there — but the equations just won’t come out right left. “Rather more difficult is to conceptualize a radically different mode of production, and how to represent the sociopolitical transition required to take us there.” Quite.

November 17, 2015admin 25 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

25 Responses to this entry

  • Alrenous Says:

    I’m sure spasms of destruction will encourage food exporters to deal with Haiti. If farmers think they can make food by beating up those they envy, I’m sure they’ll immediately get down to tilling and planting.
    One almost begins to question his sincerity. If I were saying that it would be because I was bored and want to see some shit burn, in case it makes a new kind of ash. But I’m sure Noble Comrade Zizek has only pure motives in mind.


    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 4:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#201) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 4:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Seth Says:

    Communist theorists must write their whole world into being (Zizek’s essay and his link to Jameson’s book being cases in point). Capitalist theorists, on the other hand, have simply described the one they saw developing organically.

    This distinction is lost on the left.


    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 4:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Jesus that is a spectacular point Zizek is making here. I hadn’t made that connection. I was seeing it as an ALLIANCE between the multiculturalists and the capitalists — each of whom gets what they want. But to think the capitalists are actually SERVED by the anti-freedom consequences of the multiculturalists’ push … well … that is just brilliant.


    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 5:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    In a way, Norway’s mass murderer Andres Breivik was right in his choice of target: He didn’t attack the foreigners but those within his own community who were too tolerant towards intruding foreigners. The problem is not foreigners—it is our own (European) identity.


    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 5:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • rucoi Says:

    A meltdown in what regard? Zizek has been going on about this for the last year and a half.

    Perhaps I’m naive but I’ve come to understand him as an enthusiastic proponent of global capitalism as an organic entity to which world wide goverence is helpless against and rightfully so. He refers to Marx in a far less antiquated manner than what’s proposed above, evident in the cheapening use of ‘comrade’. His approach is certaintly novel applying Marxism to the apparatus of capital as a phenomenon serparated from localized meddling. This we can argue.

    The tone and assertion of the op is fantastically misinformed.


    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 8:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#201) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 9:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • existoon Says:

    From Zizek latest book, Trouble in Paradise

    “It is at this level that we should also discern a mistake of Marx. He perceived how capitalism unleashed the breathtaking dynamics of self-enhancing productivity – witness his fascinated descriptions of how, in capitalism, ‘all things solid melt into thin air’, of how capitalism is the greatest revolutionizer in the entire history of humanity. He also clearly perceived how this capitalist dynamics is propelled by its own inner obstacle or antagonism; that the ultimate limit of capitalism (of capitalism’s self-propelling productivity) is Capital itself – the incessant capitalist development and revolutionizing of its own material conditions, the mad dance of its unconditional spiral of productivity. Capital is ultimately engaged in nothing but a desperate flight forwards in an attempt to escape its own debilitating inherent contradiction. Marx’s fundamental mistake was to conclude from these insights that a new, higher social order (Communism) is possible that would not only maintain, but even raise to a higher degree and effectively fully release, the potential of the self-increasing spiral of productivity which, in capitalism – on account of its inherent obstacle (contradiction) – is again and again thwarted by socially destructive economic crises.”

    But let’s not despair, comrades …

    “So the critics of Communism were in a way right when they claimed that Marxian Communism is an impossible fantasy. What they did not perceive is that Marxian Communism, this notion of a society of pure unleashed productivity outside the frame of Capital, was a fantasy inherent to capitalism itself, the capitalist inherent transgression at its purest, a strictly ideological fantasy of maintaining the thrust to productivity generated by capitalism, while getting rid of the ‘obstacles’ and antagonisms that were – as the sad experience of ‘really existing capitalism’ demonstrates – the only possible framework for the effective material existence of a society of permanently self-enhancing productivity. This is why a revolution has to be repeated: only the catastrophic experience can make the revolutionary agent aware of the fateful limitation of the first attempt.”

    IOW, repeat the revolution until full communism.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    To me it sounds more like, “Communism is impossible but let’s revolt anyway because we get to be revolutionaries.”


    existoon Reply:

    Yes, it’s about the feels.

    “Communist superego is not an ethical agency proper, but a sadistic agent which bombards the subject with impossible demands, obscenely enjoying the subject’s failure to comply with them.”


    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 9:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • frank Says:

    they [ISIS] should be characterized as what they are: the Islamo-Fascist counterpart of the European anti-immigrant racists—the two are the two sides of the same coin.

    Žižek stumbles upon something that’s actually true here. European ‘anti-immigrant racists’ are European tribes’ K strategists. ISIS is Middle Eastern Sunni tribes’ K strategists. Žižek et al. on the other hand, are European r strategists. This is a subconscious realization by Žižek that cooperating with rival tribes’ Ks will ultimately lead to destruction of European ‘r’s, even if they (Euro ‘r’s) win against Euro Ks in the short term.

    Let’s bring class struggle back—and the only way to do it is to insist on global solidarity of the exploited.

    A desperate plea for global ‘r’s to unite , to use gossip (r strategy, propaganda) in order to lure the world back into universalism –which rests on the fatally wrong religious belief that there is only one tribe, the human race. Žižek hopelessly wants to eat his cake and have it too –he wants to defeat his tribes’ Ks, but also not be conquered by other tribes’ Ks.

    Along with Jürgen Habermas and Peter Singer, Reimer then accuses me of endorsing “an elitist vision of politics—the enlightened political class versus a racist and ignorant population.” When I read this, I again could not believe my eyes! As if I hadn’t written pages and pages on criticizing precisely European liberal political elite!

    LMAO. Poor ol’ Žižek being torn apart under the immanentizing pull of the leftist singularity.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Are ISIS and radical Islamic migrants really K’s though, given how much they brag about siring 7-8 children and displacing Europeans through sheer force of numbers, and what they’re engaged in is looting rather than constructing? Sounds very r to me.

    That said, this accounts very well for what European liberal r’s are doing, whether ISIS is construed as r or K.


    frank Reply:

    Radical islamists and ISIS -especially deep ISIS that consists of former baathist Iraqi officials- can be viewed as Ks in their tribal context, which of course is very different than arctic tribes. These are the ones that are the ‘fighters’, tournament oriented members of their tribe. They may be looting now, but their ultimate aim is to build an Islamic order. I imagine that the fighters in the fourth crusade were Ks of their times, even though they sacked Constantinople on their way. In any case, r/K selection theory is a heuristic device that may not explain everything perfectly. Maybe a better explanation could be devised through its updated version, “life history theory”.


    John Hannon Reply:

    “… the fatally wrong religious belief that there is only one tribe, the human race.”

    Though admittedly it might prove fatal as a basis for national immigration policy, this is not a “religious belief ” as such – just a species-scale general observation which tends to appeal to religiously-minded people.



    frank Reply:

    It’s a religious belief in that it’s a central dogma of a religion (progressivism), its adherents are usually zealous about it, and not believing in it excludes one from the human network of its associated religion.

    Plus, it is demonstrably and obviously false.


    John Hannon Reply:

    So we haven’t all evolved from a single species in Africa?
    Hell, someone’s been lying to me.

    frank Reply:

    >So we haven’t all evolved from a single species in Africa?
    To the contrary, we all evolved from a single cell. Which makes all living forms on earth a single tribe I suppose.


    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 10:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stupidredneckcapitalist Says:

    Ok, I don’t feel like reading some bullshit commie queer’s essay today, so can somebody just sum me up whether he is for or against immigration to Europe from Africa and the Middle East, or is he against it, and to what extent?


    admin Reply:

    He’s for and against it (dialectically).


    Posted on November 18th, 2015 at 12:45 am Reply | Quote
  • RJL Says:

    Don’t people around here love to quote something from Chesterton about not knocking down walls?

    From Gaddafi: “Now listen you, people of NATO. You’re bombing a wall, which stood in the way of African migration to Europe and in the way of al Qaeda terrorists. This wall was Libya. You’re breaking it. You’re idiots, and you will burn in Hell for thousands of migrants from Africa.”


    Posted on November 18th, 2015 at 12:55 am Reply | Quote
  • emptyvessels Says:

    Ziizek’s article is getting all kinds of hilarious attention. I say hilarious because there are those who seem to think open borders and a come one come all policy is going to be anything but disastrous. There is so much theoretical unease and sea-sick lurching around the constructions of European, a trope so well-worn as to show the wearer’s ass to the world. In fact his approach shows more compassion and pragmatic concern than a million left wing academics cries of racism and tyranny, which are really only egoistic concerns. They ought to look to France and to Germany and cease dreaming that the working class resembles their own little circle of hell. Meanwhile everyone else will be quite happy to bomb Syria into nothing, accelerating the flow of refugees and the mechanisms of radicalization in order to produce yet more terrorists. It’s the cybernetics of para-suicidal culture.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    One wonders whether Houellebecq’s ‘Soumission’ may have actually spurred more pathological altruism now; these liberal professors may have realised that in the event of an Islamic takeover they’ll not only get to virtue-signal in the short term (ie right now) but also a teenage harem and Court Scholar status in the long term.

    The book is simultaneously a warning and a blueprint.


    Posted on November 18th, 2015 at 9:50 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    He wrote -‘The ongoing disorder should be treated as the true face of the New World Order’

    I guess it depends whom you are bombing. 1 mln return home since luanch of Russian bombing.


    Posted on November 18th, 2015 at 3:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • poorlyb Says:

    ‘One wonders whether Houellebecq’s ‘Soumission’ may have actually spurred more pathological altruism now; these liberal professors may have realised that in the event of an Islamic takeover they’ll not only get to virtue-signal in the short term (ie right now) but also a teenage harem and Court Scholar status in the long term.’

    Pretty much. You have to understand that few people are as selfish as academics. They will play the cards they are dealt to remain comfortable. For now that means climbing the social ladder they are best suited to – namely academia with a dash of social progressivism to signal what tribe they belong to, no matter if they believe it or not – and if things go sour they will sign up to the strongman religion they seem to subtly crave, Islam. It is win-win in either case because in the current setup they have access to the good life and in the future one they will hope to do OK as ‘the good ones.’ Whether Islamic fundamentalists treat them well or not is entirely up in the air, of course.


    P. George Stewart Reply:

    They probably will treat them well, so long as they toe the party line – I mean the general tenor of Islam is that so long as you submit, you will be treated well. Allah is merciful. So – as long as they throw gays, women, etc., etc., under the bus, and learn to spout the lingo, they’ll be fine. Since they’re already practicing that anyway, I don’t see a problem.


    Posted on November 18th, 2015 at 7:12 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment