You are on page 1of 14


A book like What is philosophy? being read by a yuppie in the Paris
subway. Such is the -irónica image, preparing the attack, who knows his
visually impact Zizek begins his article. But it is also an enactment requires
a procedure that key to our present becomes, in its repetition and
acceleration: that by which questions, released as complex questions, as
signs of opening, are metabolized and converted into "demands "satisfy, in
slogans of those who can guess simplification in already-coded formulas.
Such tactics applied to the question of what is the philosophy (which
responds imagining Žižek be the yuppie) is replicated in the argumentative
logic of the author, as a way of trivializing questions call radical new policy.
If the yuppie playing Deleuze as a postmodern manual helps manages to
capture a "low" reply-in a precise sense: banal, estetizante-, which is
canceled is able to require, before each question, a conceptual dramatization
at the height problematization of which he is capable.
In a text of 2001, Zizek gives us clues proceed paradoxically we would like
to also follow us. Aware of the sterilizing methods (via trivialization) of the
philosophies of emancipation-so common in the financial-elites, the author
proposes to rescue the active nuclei of the philosophy of Marx, repeating (in
a sense of reactualización) figures convicted who knew how to liven
revolution. That same rescue the living core of the new political radicalism
is what we wanted "repeat" for the current Latin American scene [2].

. The argument of the Slovenian strategy is to ignore the Deleuze author of a logic of sense pointing precisely to exalt the difference without concept as a critical substrate of successive isomorphisms proposed by the capital. Žižek's strategy does not aim to rethink this apparent convergence. 3.2. their behavior and assumptions. while the ontological difference is pure movement. able to metamorphose all. symmetry and adequacy. As a way of rejecting the radical difference and replicate it as false difference. victims of a confusion in terms. paraphrasing Irigaray. Thus. the problem that arises is that of the current isomorphism between capitalism and resistance. A dream that. but to lay bare the ingenuity of the resistance. As explained by Peter Pál Pelbart (2009). When Deleuze and Žižek posits ideologist of late capitalism (2007: 209). these resistors would be doomed from the start to be absorbed not only by capital. the questioning of all constructs tested on these premises. The discovery of isomorphism achieves two simultaneous objectives: the unveiling of the appointed ingenuity and successively. but to replicate their slogans. There is no other policy but the same logic. equivalence. the "difference" that offers capital is a pseudo-difference or difference controlled. What finally encourages Žižek's argument is a dream of identity. analogy. is required by all ontologies that use the a priori of the same.

which is synthesized with a provocative flattening: the reality of capital is deleuziana-. is . but promoted by it. is the capital itself. such as training particular colors every sphere of its alternatives.) And. but what is already intimately mediated by the "concrete universal" become capital. In short: no sensible first ontology leave.To argue such a thing.. declare that no longer exists.. Žižek bears the burden of proof: it must. which functions as the all-embracing totality which mediates all other particular formations "(2007: 212) That capitalism and the creation dynamics are presented and assumed as it involves erasing any asymmetry. ie. So it argues that "relational field previously existing affections" is not "pirated" nor hindered by the capitalist logic. But logic ontology of capital reality: "(. It is the concrete against the abstract. which makes Žižek is nothing more than an inclination of the balance: the ontologization of alternative forms."erratic excess" (2007: 210) . above all.which is disowned by their empirical naivete be first. he warns. Thus the transcendental Žižekian scheme to deny a particular part of the sensible . in this assimilation. So within the pendular dialectical style. "as libidinal support of revolutionary activity" (2007: 211). according to Žižek. which is ontologized as "omniabarcativa all". to the extent that alternative social formations unfold the same ontological attitude. This should not be thought. However. this is nothing more than a mere confirmation that are mediated. in its innermost core by the Capital as its concrete universality. which says combat and distrust. des-ontologize all political affectivity understood as acting materiality.

a "bad solution" to the problem posed by the latest Foucault around biopolitics and dynamics of social management. but hardly changed sign: ontology is now the capital. Four. we understand that the position-Žižek must be read in the specific context of what he describes as "global age". Žižek criticizes the use of multiplicity-a bastion of policies combatbecause. he says. its inverted dialectic (that which ontologizes reality-total capital) is another way of disavowal of antagonism. Taking up the thesis of the philosopher Santiago López Petit in his apolitical politicizations text (2007). Only a language that evokes (phantasmatically) all the time: the defeat. both decisive core of libertarian real socialism criticism.emptied but not taken to its radical criticism. However. particularly evident in South America "neoliberal model". When asked about how to get out of neoliberal governmentality. It is. "our time . it's the economy. politically dismisses the relationship between resistance and singling out of the crisis. is the disavowal of antagonism. Thus. Zizek seems to respond with a "going backwards": return to the socialist paradigm of the single party and the political centrality of the state apparatus. Žižek overlooked or rather. strictly speaking.

leaving aside the only truly relevant to Zizek: the repoliticization of the economy. mistaking "life therapy"). Such statement repositions politics in the classic position of the left: that is. underestimates the overall condition. authentic meaning of his slogan "repeat Lenin". This reality is what allows a harmless proliferation of insubstantial difference (minority). rather than understood as a condition of reality itself and our involvement in postpolitical because the sphere the economy has fully naturalized "(2007: 21). as the postulation of an instance (state power) able to restrict the power of capital. the emergence of a "therapeutic power" (to treat "diseases vacuum" and neutralize the "discomfort" that arise in attempts to adapt to the new conditions of exploitation . This position. and "multirrealidad" ( "openness without outside" depoliticizing). and shows absolutely unable to answer the key question: "Why the return policy has no effect politicized socially?". López Petit challenges this position still insist on the "error" to "see the post-political condition as a condition of the policy itself. weakens and generalizes a sense of abandonment). a "global capitalism" (which operates according to the formula of "enclosing the outside"). . says López Petit. "characterized by" being poor "(a new type of" vulnerability "resulting from the" global mobility " that internalizes fear. If Žižek thinks he rebutted "pure politics" [3] from a rediscovery of the economy as the determinant instance of the social. 5.

When capitalism has become. as we have seen. So the final question. a concrete universality over-determines all the particulars. but a kind of dissolution of reality [4]. devolve power. on which he heatedly discussed under the form of a pseudopolitics. a view of the philosopher. try to mobilize local creativity and self-organization' ?. is anachronistic and harmless continue pointing against totalitarian centralization of the system without perceiving how much the ideology of criticism coincides with and reinforces itself capitalist discourse that has opened. This reasoning suggests that late capitalism has withdrawn from the discussion the hard core -economía. . is not the anticentralización the issue of new capitalism digitized "(2007: 211)?.Following Žižek's argument along many of their interventions are a repeated sequence: the denunciation of anachronism critical of contemporary changes of power in late capitalism. are presented as harmless. against a capitalism whose guiding principle is the production of differences. Indeed. it is how to revolutionize an order whose principle is "self-revving permanent". adopting a flexible and permissive ideology "is not the latest trend of management own corporate 'diversify. slide. and what we generically call "culture". no real confrontations. a series of secondary issues around identities and lifestyles of minorities. criticism of Zizek is based on an ironic attack on behalf of a "Lacanian politics" to the call Postmodernism and centers unthinking diffusion (particularly American universities) who theorize an order in which there is no visible political enemy.

aided somewhat by the big Other capital. therefore. . instead. any party the difference is. according to Žižek. claiming that he has lost sight of as the real core. to use political maneuver to reform the ways of the economic process. Since the post-politics. unfolding from outside the class scientific discourse of Marx with Lacan are the bodies enjoying the subject which will be transformed as a result of a speech analyst that Žižek political aims: the Lacan Zizek is the truth of the repetition of Lenin.But back to the economy. Missed admirer of Lenin Soviet commune and. Žižek justifies the need to repeat Lenin. Lenin has lost his Machiavellian side of active reader of the constituent features of the resistors. a purely discursive Lenin appears. If Lenin's What to do? He argued that workers could not emancipate themselves from the chains of capitalist economy because his conscience in spontaneous struggles remained within the bourgeois horizon (to the extent they were limited to the union demand) and. 6. we understand finally what a Lacanian policy ( a Lacanian) Leninism. was the party I should mediate these struggles to gain access to a proper socialist consciousness. therefore. So he repeated. It is to release all bodily development of the power to attribute it entirely to the master signifier "the Capital". any pure political process has been emptied of constituent aptitude and.

Hence criticism of the experiences of the new radicality find their counterpoint. We spit on Žižek 7. Deleuze-Guattari]. recognizes the libidinal functioning of fascism and opposes another "political passions" [Bloch. under the name of a micro. Hence also known Žižek diatribes against the book Empire [5]: "What will happen when if this is really the desire and the will of these movements-" take power "? How would the "crowd in power"? "Jokes. Žižek draws the line trench (from bad influences) [6]. in the case of Latin America. capable of producing the criteria (also immanent) to distinguish between absolute democracy and postmodern fascism. The latter focuses its effectiveness in a control unit against the spread spirit of autonomous initiatives. The enemy is clear: the philosophy of immanence and producing an image of Spinoza crowd mobilized by a substance-affirmative desire. .The controversy now points out against a left that. The experiences of self-organization inspired by Zapatismo [7] are read from the perspective Žižek. in the figure of Chavez. in counterpoint with the Chavista leadership and building a single party. Reich. Against sesentayochismo of Deleuze associated with Guattari and the subsequent alliance with Negri Guattari.

which is a present. as the only way in which the subject may be present for himself or herself "(2005: 78). the deficit and lack that invests the Lacanian conceptual machinery and espouses a certain conception Hegel "(2005: 77). the work of Žižek represents an anti-feminist regression that reiterates the whole repertoire of invisibility and symbolic specularity against which feminists have been arguing since it began to appear the work of Lacan" (2005: 76 ). infused by capitalism. Žižek perpetuates an entire economy. Such an economy becomes ontology.Let us return to the denial of the first affectivity. or absence structurally necessary. as the author emphasizes. But back to think another edge: the sensitive condition of the feminine and the possibility of founding another economy. Even if. assuming a male subject economy governed by the lack and negativity. On this point Rosi Braidotti complaint Žižek acceptance of the notion of femininity proposed by Hegel and a conservative reading of Lacan's thought. constitutive and unsolvable absence. The economy as a privileged sphere of reality and reconciles the notions of absence and dialectic. For Braidotti: "This structuring absence is central to the ontology of Lacan of negativity and leads to what Derrida describes as the" spectral economy "of the subject. But Braidotti also denounced the alleged renewal of a real policy that would be based on acceptance of the economy as a privileged sphere of antagonism. "In terms of thinking the feminine. both . Economy of capital that organizes a whole emotional and conceptual economy: "With the arrogant claim of having unmasked.

In this line. based from the relationship with the feminine mother in Irigaray and the material-affective subject roots as Deleuze. every body being primarily of words. the prospect of Žižek is related (in its common structuralist root) with the Argentine theorist Ernesto Laclau (2005). 8. So the language is not simply the technicalities of the game equivalences and differences.Deleuze (in 1968 with Difference and Repetition) as Irigaray (in 1974 Speculum of the other woman) and marked strong criticism of the theory of desire as lack. the only possible source of meaning. as . one for which no material object archaic (Žižek) and for whom everything begins in a structural symbolism. The thought of origin. play of signifiers. which results in a non-linguistic regularity or common habit that guides language from within. whose relative success in the field of political philosophy to interpret the current regimes in Latin America as "populist" it draws on a scheme whereby words. pure rational spirit. carrier sense depends on a material. loving home. The other. If we take the terms of the Argentine philosopher Leon Rozitchner. Here the language. on the basis of which it can develop the sense also of language (Rozitchner). or bodily memory. On the one hand. we could raise it as follows: the opposition is drawn between two types of proposals subjectivities. is held on a brand [Freud's primary process]. however. following the prescriptions of a significant "master". takes away from the fault in both phallogocentric story that denies the sensible difference as a frame of an embodied materialism.

the main (pre) occupation of political activity is the determination of "significant" certain so-called "floating". the supposedly transgressive ideology that has not taken note of his isomorphism with the transformation-rereads in his favor Freudian opposition between mourning ( "Got acceptance of loss pathological ") and melancholy" "(" in the subject persists in narcissistic identification with the lost object ") in favor of the latter statement. [9] Slovenian philosopher's argument is as follows: the "dominant doxa" -that is. Thus. There is a "rest that can not be integrated with the work of mourning." which tends to organize a fundamental fidelity. it is the alibi of the "postcolonial studies"."significant" face. paid the direction of our arguments. 9. "ethnic link with the lost object". A perspective article rozitchneana Žižek Act or melancholy [8]. accused Zizek. for example. possess the ability to gather and organize in a certain way the usual representations about the things of the world and eminently political operation by which certain interpretations of world are imposed on others in the same level language is called hegemonic. What is the error melancholic ?: "locate this resistance in a positively . Zizek denounces the "objective cynicism" of this position to a double opportunistic game: enables. holding a fidelity to the "ancient roots. while fully participate in the capitalist game global". This melancholy.

" The object of melancholy is subjected to decay: it possesses only unconditionally loss. refuses to "lose the object" mater-ialismo support. the first object did exist. To Rozitchner. deploying a "metaphysical longing for another absolute reality. Melancholy is thus the body that resists castration / aterrotrizante (clotted mother alive). which explains itself may have a non-removable rest. through a deceptive displacement of the lack of loss. then. for example). takes an excessive and superfluous mourning for objects that neither possesses nor are being lost. mistaking "loss and lack". What is the confusion? "Object-cause lack of desire originally a constitutively". Positivizes melancholy "empty / missing". Gloomy stratagem to confirm their relationship loss with a sensitive object is treated as already lost a sensitive object ever possessed. however. What is at stake in this loss or subsistence of an initial object is the body that holds the body of signifiers. It is to defend." "absolute corporeal hybrid and inconsistent". .existing object but lost" (ethnicity. a type of guy who. or the system by which they float on nothingness [preeminence of the symbolic] are exchanged. such an object "can be possessed only insofar as it is lost. despite everything. It is behind all lost object. Thus the melancholy is in the paradoxical position of rejecting the duel and at the same time.

Where terror and defeat operate as a brake on the political imagination a completely insufficient to problematize (either from theory or from the state) realism arises what social movements put into play during the destituyente phase of neoliberal legitimacy. it is not the awakening disappointed . and in our case (and also of Žižek. What is at stake. Because. Do we have any chance to reflect on these issues without taking as background the Caracazo of 1989. the Zapatista rebellion of 1994. believe it or not). let's be specific: we speak of theories to discuss practices. these -the practices that are defiant background leading to the most disturbing political issue: the rejection of obedience and attempt to create new ways of lifetime. we remain in the most extreme of defencelessness against the forces that mobilize "significant". complex and fragile.cut the branch on which tries to lie: without identifying the productivity of resistance in its singularity. leading to a new period in which the massive presence in the streets gives way to a moment of institution.10. It remains to reverse the game. however.succeeds in defining a certain effect of closing a cycle of struggles which is also a darkening of the effectiveness of a certain way of reading situations and texts-. -ingeniosa Work the Žižek and erudita. the Argentina crisis of 2001 and the Bolivian revolt of 2003 [10]? We can not but admit that the provocation of Žižek His relative success among us .

"sesentiochesca illusion". but an urgent and dramatic question for thinking able to regain that vitality in times of impasse. .