CoD (was Re: Zizek = the Third Way (was Re: Zizek on Haider))

[Peter K.]

Yoshie:
>>But as you well know The Man has since appropriated the term for use in
his
>>nefarious designs. I'm still wondering about that peculiar phrase
Hirschorn
>>used today in Slate: "'commodification of dissent' voguishness."
>
>I think that Thomas Frank & _The Baffler_ moved on from criticisms of
>"commodification of dissent" just in time.  It was becoming a bit of cliche
>(I liked the latest issue of _The Baffler_).  The commodification of nearly
>everything is to be expected under capitalism, so harping on this fact
>again and again paradoxically ends up reinforcing some people's faith in
>the very idea you are discounting (e.g., the power of "subversive" music).

Maybe to you and me it has become a cliche, but I don't think it's in vogue.
Maybe Hirschorn thinks "subversive" art is en vogue. He would still be
wrong.


>BTW, why do you like _Three Kings_?  The movie is an argument for a
>"humanitarian intervention"!  Is Carl Remick the only LBO-Talker who didn't
>like the film?

Have you seen it? I don't see how it's an argument for humanitarian
interventionism. I agree with what Nathan said about it laying out the
corruption of the whole war. At one point George Clooney's character wonders
aloud what the hell they were doing there.
Part of what's good about the movie is its politics, but it's more than
that. It was light for a war movie, but the film takes place after the war
had ended.

Basically, I saw it with a New Republic centrist type who didn't like it and
thought it was too critical of the U.S. which makes it good enough for me.