<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040301/004722.html>
from which -
If we could get clear about which of these desires constituted "true resistance to capitalism," perhaps the argument could be advanced somewhat.
++++++
Ted Winslow posted:
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040301/004828.html>
from which -
That the "target" constructed in this way is to be a target of hatred and violence is consistent with a Kleinian conception
of the psychology involved as psychotic sychopathology, i.e. as the product of psychotic defenses - splitting and projective identification - against psychotic anxiety - fear of annihilation. This is true as well of the perception of "authenticity" as"violent transgression."
====================
Unfortnately, I'm almost completely overwhelmed by work demands and can't devote as much time to developing a comprehensive answer as I'd like; at least for the moment.
Still, I'll try to briefly explain (in answer to Jon's query) what I meant by "true resistance..." via an example.
Of course, everyone agrees the requirements of capitalism are, mostly, directly at odds with the interests of workers.
Surely many and possibly all of the things we lament about the way we live -- the lack of time, the ennui, the mounting stresses placed upon personal life -- are the result of our civilization being arranged around the interests of large-scale owners.
This oppostion is inevitable, given the inhuman demands (by 'inhuman' I mean with little regard for human needs such as for rest, for meaningful labor, for community and so on) of capitalism. Even so, although there is natural opposition, felt in the bones of put-upon workers, there is rarely understanding of the systemic cause of the problem -- I believe Ted's post provides an interpretation of this situation in depth.
My position, as regards Zizek's essay (perhaps I'm mis-reading, or, rather, reading more into the thing than was there -- always a possibility which must be acknowledged), is that he's describing fascism and Jihadist nihilism as the exploitation of that natural opposition, that opposition which exists (must exist, given our needs as a species) because of the inhuman demands of capitalism but lacks an understanding of the true enemy's identity.
Fundamentalist Christianity can be re-interpreted (somewhat) along these lines. If you listen carefully to the complaints of fundamentalists, at base many of them are really attacks on the sort of world capitalism creates. For example, I don't believe in censorship, and I don't think pr0n is, in theory, a bad thing. But as a market object, a packaged and soul-less stream of ever new but always identical images, it's a bleak monstrosity.
The fundies approach to pr0n is to decry the 'cheapening of human sexuality' using a Christian point of view. Defenders of free speech and people who are simply opposed to the fundies in principle will often dismiss the critique -- so heavily weighted with heavenly baggage -- and focus on the Constitutional issues and the generally retrogressive terribleness of the fundie project.
But the core problem - of hyper-marketed sexuality, duplicated and sold in vast quantities as, in many instances, a replacement for actual sex (a replacement made necessary by the broken and alienated society capitalism creates) - is not an illusion or merely a preoccupation of fundie neurosis but very real.
So, the queasiness a person may feel at the pr0n-ed world, channeled into a fundamentalist response by a mis-understanding of the real cause of the problem (along with other factors of course), is, at heart, a natural and authentic resistance to capitalist manipulation of the human drive for sex.
The fact this natural resistance is poured into the fundie mold is a tragedy.
Other examples can be cited.
I make no special claim to having discovered the final truth -- surely I'm missing a million things here -- so I welcome corrective debate.
DRM