Changes

Capitalism, when viewed as a [[system ]] of [[exchange ]] relations, is described as a [[commodity ]] or market [[society ]] in which everything, including one's labor [[power]], has a price and all transactions are fundamentally exchange transactions. Capitalism, when viewed as a system of power relations, is described as a society in which every kind of transactional relation is fundamentally exploitative. (Tong, Rosemarie. [[Feminist ]] [[Thought]]: A More Comprehensive Introduction, 1998, p. 96.)

Capitalism is, was and always will be essentially and fundamentally a [[patriarchy]]. Iris Young wrote: "My [[thesis ]] is that marginalization of [[women ]] and thereby our functioning as a secondary labor force is an essential and fundamental characteristic of capitalism." (Tong, Rosemarie. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction, 1998, p. 122-123.)

Capitalism is a system that depends on the exploitation of underclass groups for its survival. (hooks, bell. Feminist [[Theory]]: from margin to center, 1984, p. 101.)

Capitalism is an [[ideology ]] that has for its dominant values, "individualism, competitiveness, domination and in our [[time]], consumption of a [[particular ]] kind." (Hartman, Heidi, "The Unhappy [[Marriage ]] of [[Marxism ]] and [[Feminism]]." from The Second Wave edited by Linda Nicholson, 1997, p. 99.)

"The first mode of [[economy ]] with the weapon of propaganda, a mode which tends to engulf the entire globe and stamp out all [[other ]] economies, tolerating no rival at its side. Yet at the same time it is also the first mode of economy which is unable to [[exist ]] by itself, which [[needs ]] other [[economic ]] systems as a medium and a soil." (Rosa Luxemburg 1963)."An advanced [[stage ]] of patriarchy." (Azizah Al-Hibri 1981). (Both these [[quotes ]] are from Chris Kramarae & Paula A. Treichler. Amazons, Bluestockings, and Crones, Pandora Press, 1992, p. 85.)

Capitalism: The economic system in which the means of production are in private ownership. [[Marx ]] described the exploitative forms of capitalism in his theory of the capitalist [[mode of production]]. Radical feminists, [[liberals ]] and socialist feminists agree that there can be no [[understanding ]] of the [[nature ]] of contemporary capitalist society without placing the oppression of women at the centre of such an [[analysis]]. Nor can any adequate [[feminist theory ]] simply add women as a "[[missing ]] ingredient" to an overall [[Marxist ]] theory. (Humm, Maggie. The [[Dictionary ]] of Feminist Theory, 1990, p. 23.)

Capitalism: An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of [[capital ]] goods and by prices, production and distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a [[free market]]. (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1997, p. 122.)

If much of Žižek’s [[philosophical ]] endeavour entails unveiling and intertwining the enigmas of [[Hegel ]] and [[Lacan]], it has become increasingly [[apparent ]] that the [[political ]] [[goal ]] of this undertaking is the critique of [[global ]] capitalism. In producing a [[Lacanian]]-[[Hegelian ]] [[reading ]] of Marxism, Žižek does not directly engage with [[normative ]] critiques of our mode of [[material ]] reproduction, nor seek to gain an empirical understanding of capitalism. Instead, his critical reading of the dialectics of ideology and [[enjoyment]], [[class struggle]] and the [[structural ]] reproduction of capital, seeks to provoke a disruptive rethinking of the methods through which capitalism continues to flourish and the opportunities to halt its seemingly infinite reproduction.

Although the critique of capitalism has become the primary focus of Žižek’s political enquiry, its prominence is most evident in his later [[texts]]. Capital had certainly been a point of [[discussion ]] in Žižek’s initial [[work]], but largely as a necessary exemplar for interventions into Marxism (''SO'': 23–6, 51–3). A more detailed analysis of the status of capital emerged through the debate with [[Judith ]] [[Butler ]] and Ernesto [[Laclau ]] in ''[[Contingency, Hegemony, Universality]]'' and in ''[[The Parallax View]]'', but it was only with the publication of ''[[In Defense of Lost Causes]]'' that global capitalism became a distinct focus of Žižek’s political critique, a focus that has continued in ''[[Living in the End Times]]'' and ''[[Less Than Nothing]]'', in addition to his shorter works. There are [[three ]] core elements to this critique: the [[symbolic ]] [[logic ]] of the [[self]]-revolutionary reproduction of capital, the co-option of [[desire ]] and enjoyment, and the [[Real ]] contradictions of [[class struggle]].

For Žižek, capital is not an [[object ]] like any other. Instead, the operation of capitalism is the ([[absent]]) background against which all sociality responds, producing a “Real” [[limit ]] to the possibilities for political [[action]]. Th is point has been the source of significant criticism, with suggestions that by constructing capitalism in such a manner, Žižek reduces [[politics ]] to an [[impossible ]] radicality (Laclau in ''CHU''; Sharpe 2004; Sharpe & Boucher 2010). For Žižek, however, this radicality (often referenced to the [[The Act|Lacanian Act]]) is a necessary response to a [[situation ]] in which “it is easier to imagine the end of the [[world ]] than a far more modest [[change ]] in the mode of production, as if [[liberal ]] capitalism is the ‘real’ that will somehow survive even under [[conditions ]] of a global ecological catastrophe” (''MI'': 1).

Žižek’s [[development ]] of capital as [[the Real ]] been concurrent with his growing [[reflection ]] on the seemingly endless reproduction of capitalism. The first [[links ]] between capital and the Real emerged as seemingly secondary references in ''[[Mapping Ideology]]'' and ''[[The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology|The Ticklish Subject]]'', when (with reference to global climate change) Žižek suggested: “This catastrophe thus gives [[body ]] to the Real of our time: the thrust of Capital which ruthlessly disregards and destroys particular [[life]]-worlds, threatening the very survival of humanity” (''TS'': 4). Moving on to argue that “Capital itself is the Real of our time” (''TS'': 276), in his three-way collaboration with Butler and Laclau, ''[[Contingency, Hegemony, Universality]]'', he positions capital as the background against which all symbolizations must relate, a “limit to resignification” (''CHU'': 223) that “structures “[[structures]] in advance the very terrain on which the multitudes of particular elements fight for hegemony” (''CHU'': 320).

Žižek however, makes a clear [[distinction ]] between the economy/capital as an essential limit to [[signification ]] and hegemonic [[struggle ]] and capital as the positive condition that creates a symbolic background against which hegemonic struggle occurs (''CHU'': 319). This understanding is extended through the distinction Žižek makes between triadic modalities of the Real, giving the Real [[Imaginary]], Symbolic and Real dimensions (''TK'': xii). Here [[the symbolic ]] Real, which Žižek describes as “the Real as consistency”, provides the systematic background against which shared [[social ]] life operates.

Consequently, the reproduction of the circuit of capital can be [[understood ]] as independent of any of the [[demands ]] of “reality”. Th is conception is not strictly ahistorical, but represents the rise in a self-fulfilling and self-revolutionizing finance capital such that:<blockquote>It [financial [[speculation]]] is “real” in the precise [[sense ]] of determining the [[structure ]] of material social [[processes ]] themselves: the fate of [[whole ]] swathes of the population and sometimes whole countries can be decided by the “solipsistic” speculative dance of Capital, which pursues its goal of profitability with blessed indifference to how its movements will [[affect ]] social [[reality]]. Therein lies the fundamental systematic [[violence ]] of capitalism … it is no longer attributable to [[concrete ]] individuals and their “evil” intentions, but is purely “objective”, systematic, anonymous. (''LN'': 244)</blockquote>The reproduction of systematic violence within capital takes the [[form ]] of the [[Drive|Lacanian drive]], in the sense that the [[circulation ]] and expansion of capital becomes an end in itself (''PV'': 60–61). Further, Žižek argues that capitalism has become a self-revolutionary force that is propelled by its own point of [[impossibility]], whereby what appear to be obstacles to the circuit of capital become opportunities for profit (''LN'': 651). Indeed, for Žižek it is this very point of impossibility that [[drives ]] capital, a point he argues Marx overlooks (''SO'': 50–53), along with the importance of the Lacanian notions of enjoyment and the superego (''FA'': 23).

Beyond the “structural violence” of the symbolic Real, Žižek argues that capitalism maintains a “grip” upon [[subjectivity ]] through the incitement of enjoyment, which under [[late capitalism ]] is not prohibited but rather demanded. These demands upon the body are a form of [[superego]] enjoyment, which Žižek suggests has become the prevalent form of contemporary enjoyment under late capitalism.

This Lacanian [[superego]] is not the superego of the [[Freudian ]] [[moral ]] [[conscience ]] but, instead, an excessive [[demand ]] to [[enjoy]]. Utilizing this [[notion]], Žižek argues that under capitalism enjoyment is no longer prohibited by moral norms, but explicitly demanded and administered, largely through the consumption of commodities that act as the embodiment of ''[[Objet (petit) a|objet a]]'', offering the prospect of [[full ]] enjoyment (''FA'': 23; Stavrakakis 2000). In this way, even the most radical desire can be included, so long as it can become a site of profitability.

Consumerist [[fantasies]], accompanied by the ideological the [[ideological]] [[fantasy ]] of liberal [[democracy]], [[present ]] capitalism as a realm of [[freedom]]. Conversely, Žižek argues that this freedom functions only as “activity” – as opposed to the proper [[The Act|Lacanian Act]]– that presents the [[illusion ]] of [[choice ]] while maintaining the systematic reproduction of capitalism (''TS'': 374). Consequently, it is only with the radicality of the [[The Act|Lacanian Act]] that the possibility for rupture [[exists]]. Th is possibility of these radical [[acts ]] is dependent upon the disruptive [[presence ]] of the Real within capitalism.

Although much of Žižek’s work is directed at alerting the reader to the grip of capital and its [[lack ]] of interest in the exigencies of ordinary life, he also seeks to point to fault lines within capitalism itself. These fault lines, particularly the “impossibility” of [[class ]] struggle and the production of “new forms of apartheid”, threaten to disrupt the operation of capital.

As with his writings on capital and Marxism, Žižek’s development of class begins at a relatively late stage in his work, but is both vital to his understanding of capitalism and has distinct similarities to his reading of capital qua the Real. Žižek first addressed [[class struggle]] in ''[[The Sublime Object of Ideology]]'', where he declares (with reference to the Real):<blockquote>In this way we might reread even the classic notion of “[[class struggle]]”: it is not the last [[signifier ]] giving [[meaning ]] to all social phenomena (“all [[social processes ]] are in the final analysis expressions of the [[class struggle]]”), but – quite the contrary – a certain limit, a pure negativity, a [[traumatic ]] limit which prevents totalization of the social-ideological field. (''SO'': 164)</blockquote>Žižek subsequently develops this reading to [[suggest ]] that, although class acts as the totalizing [[moment ]] in society, it does not operate as the classical Marxist positive [[guarantee ]] for social life. That is, class (like capital) is not the [[anchoring point ]] against which all other social positions can be determined, but instead acts as the totalizing antagonism that prevents the final occurrence of society (''I'': 100). Consequently, if capital operates as a systematic form of violence, the foundational wound that disrupts this systematic reproduction is [[class struggle]].

As a corollary, Žižek argues that the indeterminacy of class struggle ensures that the economy is always the [[political economy ]] (''PV'': 55). Here, much as Lacan [[identified ]] [[Sexual Difference|sexual difference]] as the [[antagonism]] by which both [[sexuality ]] and sociality are riven, Žižek suggests that class plays this [[role ]] in the economy (''UE'': 82). Thus, capitalism cannot simply be understood in [[terms ]] of the [[symbolic Real]], but this logic is itself a response to the impossibility of [[class struggle]].

Nonetheless, because class struggle ''qua'' the Real is both the antagonistic point to which direct access is not available and the factor preventing this access, Žižek argues that it cannot be the [[subject ]] of “positive research” (''ibid.''), and he has little more to say [[about ]] it beyond reference to the Real, much to the consternation of his critics (Özselçuk & Madra 2005, 2007; Devenney 2007). Conversely, his later works have been driven towards the [[identification ]] of those elements of capitalism that are proving most disruptive to it.

These works have increasingly focused upon a particular point of [[contradiction ]] within capitalism, that of the slum dwellers of the developing world, which Žižek argues is one of the “new forms of apartheid” and the “crucial geo-political [[event ]] of our time” (''LC'': 424). Here, contrary to his apparent understanding of capitalism as a monstrous juggernaut, Žižek argues that four points of antagonism currently threaten capitalism: the possibility of ecological collapse; the contradictions between immaterial labour, [[intellectual ]] property and [[private property]]; the development of new [[scientific ]] technologies that are changing the nature of life in its barest form; and the new forms of political [[exclusion ]] (''LC'': 420–25). In this [[construction]], it is the last element that defines the rest by adding that [[dimension ]] of [[universality ]] Žižek finds so decisive: the other three contradictions have been able to be included within the limits of capitalism; it is only the “part of no part” of the excluded [[human ]] [[surplus ]] that adds the “subversive” (''LC'': 430) edge to those other [[antagonisms ]] that will be the “germs of the future” (''LC'': 426).