Comments on: Zizek on the Economy

By: Greg Flemming

Greg Flemming — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:24:52 +0000

The problem is that O and M write that Z implicitly argues that capitalism is here to stay (!); they argue this by saying that he de-historicizes surplus so that it looks the same in all times and places. I completely disagree with this (as it appears you do to), as he makes it explicit for over 70 pages surplus under capitalism is to be found in the particularity of the commodity form – a position that he maintains in CHU (mentioned above), “Lenin’s Choice”, etc, etc. That he doesn’t consider other forms is, I think, beyond the point in this instance. O/M charge that he’s got it wrong even in regards to capital… and then go on to give a Kantian (i.e. an ahistorical!) political regulative-imperative disquised as a reference to Badiou.

That is, they don’t see the importance of form, and stumble into formalism.

The quote you give above sounds much like his position in SOI: i.e. you can’t have capitalism without the surplus; i.e. you can’t expect to have the productivity of capitalism once you get rid of the surplus it generates (which he accusses Marx of not seeing). This IS to say that Zizek holds that ‘surplus’ can’t be eliminated, but this ISN’T to say that the particular form it takes under capitalism is inevitable and that capitalism will therefore always exist. O/M don’t appear to catch this.

Can you send a copy of your thesis as a PDF (or whatever) to my email address? I’d like to print it out and read it properly.

By: nzcook

nzcook — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:05:34 +0000

Thanks for your comments Greg. In regards to Madra and Ozselcuk, although I’m not in total agreement with their position, I would agree with their argument that Zizek does not explore alternative readings of surplus in much detail. The example you cite is over 20 years old now and to my knowledge Zizek has not discussed this point in any detail since. Indeed, he often avoids it. In Multitude, Surplus, Envy (Rethinking Marxism, 19(1), 2007, pp.55) he stated;

‘The theoretical task, with immense practical-political consequences, is here: how are we to think the surplus that pertains to human productivity ‘as such’ outside its appropriation/distortion by the capitalist logic of surplus value as the mobile of social reproduction?”

But does not go on to give an answer, or even discuss the question further. The question to ask is why this is the case. Is it evidence of Zizek’s inability to think outside of the logic of capital or simply evidence of the limitations upon political practice at this point in history? I would suggest that for Zizek it is the later and for this reason he would reject Madra and Ozselcuk’s critique.

In regards to your second point, the Marx I was responding to here was the Marx of ‘Marxism’ rather than any direct reading of Marx himself. Nonetheless, I have been remiss in not providing a more detailed reading of the ambiguities within Marxism, both in regards to class and other concepts detailed in the chapter ‘Marxism after the signifier’.

By: Greg Flemming

Greg Flemming — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 19:58:59 +0000

I haven’t had a chance to read through all of this, but I have two comments. First, Özselcuk & Madra are completely off base in their claim that Zizek can’t see how surplus plays out in different modes of production. If you look at the first chapter of SOI, you’ll see that Zizek draws the distinction between Feudalism and Capitialism: in Feudalism extraction of surplus is explicit, whereas under capital it is underground, hidden under the guise of formal freedom… and this is the important point – it does this via the commoditiy form and the particular form of surplus that goes with it. Özselcuk & Madra miss this, and end up giving a Kantian regulative idea as their politics, as inspired by Badiou, without explaining why anyone would ever adhere to it. (something about “thou shalt not take more surplus than you need” or some such thing).

Again, I haven’t read all of this chapter or any of those previous, but I’m uncertain about all the bogey-Marx you seem to rely on – i.e. all the “contra-Marx”s. Marx didn’t think ‘class’ was simply an empirical reality. Hence the “sack of potatoes” comment in The Eighteenth Brumaire, oft quoted by Gramsci, and of course all the in-itself for-itself business found in The Poverty of Philosophy. And Zizek does propose something exactly along this line – i.e. via the Party, as described by Lukacs. I can’t find your biblio here, but Zizek’s paper in Lukacs’ ‘Tailism and Dialetic’ goes on on this point – and it was published around the same time as CHU (with all the discussion of capitalism as real and class stuggle). Which is to say I’m not sure how much of what you say is Contra-Marx is actually contra Marx.

Lastly (so I guess there’s three comments) Zizek makes reference to Lukacs in CHU in reference to how the economy ‘overdetermines’ or acts as an ‘oppositional determination’ of capital: it’s not just via Class struggle, but the “Class and COMMODITY” structure of Capital. I think this is on Page 196 or 197. ANd Marx himself mroe or less says this in his famous letter to Weydemyer: he (marx) didn’t invent class; he showed how it takes on different inflections via the mode of production. Again, I’m trying to show how Zizek is less “contra-Marx” than consistent with what he says…