Changes
The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles).
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|superego ]] (''FA'': 23).
=== Enjoying capitalism ===
Beyond the “structural violence” of [[The Symbolic|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|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.
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|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.
