Comments for Disavowed Foundations

Comment on Marxism after the Signifier by olivier jutel

olivier jutel — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:35:27 +0000

Yo, I stumbled back across your page to fund your reply. To briefly summarize my angle on this issue:
-Obama represents new spirit of capitalism and the claim to ethically transcend the worst excess of capitalism
-Tea Party respond to what is an attempt to transform the nature of commodity fetishism
-As obama represents a threat to their vulgar bourgeois autonomy of private property as a reconciled moral system, the Tea Party retreat into their fetishized ideal of the man of property (think of Jefferson’s yeoman)
-In this way Tea Party speak to the political in inverted fashion (ie economy, a bit reductionist I know)
I’ve just revised a manuscript on this accepted for publication, let me know if you are interested.

Comment on The Communist Hypothesis: Zizekian Utopia or Utopian Fantasy? by Der kommende Aufstand | thebabyshambler

Der kommende Aufstand | thebabyshambler — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:25:33 +0000

[...] Ausbeutung Osteuropas durch UN- und IWF-initiierte Privatisierungsprogramme? Ein Gespräch über The Communist Hypothesis bei einem Gläschen Rotwein in St. Germain; auf ein Bier nach Williamsburg, nur um Derrida gegen [...]

Comment on The Communist Hypothesis: Zizekian Utopia or Utopian Fantasy? by Der kommende Aufstand « anewsolarplexus

Der kommende Aufstand « anewsolarplexus — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:48:55 +0000

Comment on The Blood of Capital: An entirely speculative and unreferenced consideration of my future research path by nzcook

nzcook — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:03:05 +0000

Unfortunately there is not a lot to update – I’ve just submitted the manuscript for a book based on my previous work, which has been taking up the majority of my time. However, I’m very keen to get back into the blogging as a way of developing my future work

Comment on The Blood of Capital: An entirely speculative and unreferenced consideration of my future research path by Chris

Chris — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:02:04 +0000

How is your research going? Any chance to post an update?

Comment on The Essential Negativity of the Left by charley2u

charley2u — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:29:31 +0000

Marxism has failed to recognize the significance of ex nihilo currency (debased dollar) for the law of value. Having lost this thread, they have lost their way entirely.

Comment on Marxism after the Signifier by nzcook

nzcook — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:34:57 +0000

Hey Olivier,

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you; I’m a bit slack with the blog. Sounds like a fascinating topic – would be interesting to have a read. What kind of angle are you taking?

Comment on Marxism after the Signifier by Paradigm Shift – Word and Art « Not Quite Lit Theory

Paradigm Shift – Word and Art « Not Quite Lit Theory — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:47:39 +0000

[...] Chris McMillan responds to the Postmodern line of thinking with: “At worst this form of social constructivism leads to a cynically debauched wallowing in consumerism and administrated hedonism quite divorced from the politics – and political consequences – of its construction.” [...]

Comment on Marxism after the Signifier by Olivier Jutel

Olivier Jutel — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:31:31 +0000

Hey there, stumbled across your thesis and i just wanted to acknowledge my appreciation of your work. I’m presently doing my phd thesis at Otago on Obama, the Tea Party and the media. All the best, let me know if you’re interested in reading any of my stuff. Peace

Comment 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.