Zizek's Old Joke

The joke, as Zizek tells it, goes along these lines: 

A man is convinced he is a grain of seed. He is quickly taken to a mental institution where the doctor eventually convinces him that he not a grain of seed; he is a man. He is then supposedly cured and is permitted to leave the hospital. However, once he steps outside, he immediately rushes back in trembling with fear. "There is a chicken outside," the man says "and he is going to eat me." The doctor tells him, "Come now, you know very well you not a grain of seed, but a man." "You and I surely know that," the man tells him, "but does the chicken know?" 

This just tells us the nature of psychoanalytic study -- it not enough to convince the truth to the patient, but one must also be convinced that others assume that same truth. It is this struggle of truths that encapsulates the psychiatric field, which attempts to normalize individuals who have accepted a reality different than that of one's peers. 

The Compatibility of Freud and Marx

At first, the marriage of Freud and Marx in academia seems a bit out of place. It initially seems to be a senseless attempt to encapsulate two different fields of study, and to place them in similar spheres would be to diminish their individual professionalism and importance. Despite being distinct areas of interest, they do share parallels that should be properly analyzed and discussed cohesively.

Sigmund Freud is seen as the founder of psychoanalysis, and more generally, of modern psychology. Responsible for uncovering and studying the unconscious mind, Freud brought to light certain mechanisms which drive individuals, that are absent from one's natural cognition. Understandably so, this discovery had a profound impact on our supposed potentiality and actions -- the idea of mental workings beyond our individual awareness, driving our instinctual assumptions and activities, was a grave revelation. Likewise, much of it was repressed and met with harsh criticism when first introduced. The idea of an "unconscious" agent of action was seen as obscene and dehumanizing to individualist pursuits. One's idealized desires were now being undermined as simply being partial products of unconscious mechanisms, that were outside an individual's control or presumptive awareness. It was a frightening for most to even consider. 

Marxism takes a similar approach in its analysis. Marx too was responsible for uncovering social mechanisms that have escaped the supposed reality of societies, but were always present and crucial to functioning. He theorized all societies engage in a creation of surplus value and its successive allocation. Who allocates this surplus is a question that is answered by the organization and structure of the particular society, albeit unknowingly to those within it. In feudalism, such allocation was done by the lords in distributing the surplus created by the serfs. In slavery, it was the slaveholders. In modernity, it is allocated by 'capitalists' -- or under the corporate model, by a board of directors. Like Freud, Marx brings forth the uncomfortable truth that has escaped the collective consciousness (rather than the individual). He discusses a social apparatus that has always existed, but has been absent from the mentality of the community. Similar to Frued's analysis of the ramifications of the unconsciousness on human behavior and conditioning, the allocation of the surplus is responsible for cultivating and molding the community culture, its cherished beliefs, and its wants. Once again, similar to Freud, we see workings that have been absent from human awareness, but have been crucial in its development. And just as Freud's developments, they have been suppressed all the same, and for similar reasons, although you could argue analyses of the unconscious have become relatively mainstream.

This is where the main similarity lies, which validates the merging the two fields for respective questions that require it. Such an approach is practiced by the likes of philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who adheres more to Lacan's methodology, and psychologist Wilhelm Reich, who analyzed class relations through a Freudian lens. Personally, I see much of Freudian psychology to be lacking and being too speculative where it should be substantiated. The works of Jacques Lacan and Carl Jung are perhaps more compatible with Marxian thought, especially Jung's work on the collective unconsciousness, however Freud's analysis still has its uses despite its recurring limitations.

The Necessity of Anger

Perhaps in an effort to provoke, I'll just say it; anger is a necessity. 

It seems as though the modern individual has forgotten the value of well-placed anger, of well-intentioned rage, and has instead replaced it with this 'softened' variety of false struggle -- one that lacks the vigor to fundamentally change anything. This is a primary concern and a major impediment to mobilization. It is this dilemma that cripples the common man's mind, forcing him to adopt deceptive reformist positions and play the elusive game of politics. This seemingly divides many of us to the point of abandoning personal convictions, limiting us to an inhumane extent, and ultimately renders us useless rather than a catalyst for change. 

The supposed cause, from my understanding? Bourgeois liberalism and the decaying of the left. Seldom ever do you witness any real economic criticism from today's left, rather you see some trivial reformist position and a pandering to identity politics. That is really all it has come down to: petty unsubstantial reformism. And consequently, there has also been some 'softening' in the left's once-held convictions -- they've relinquished them and trampled on them. The modern left must be reinvented and revived if it wants to hope to even establish itself to the status it once held. Even worse so, they've also become inexcusably weak in their criticism (when they do criticize something substantive). When did we start espousing this implied platform that everyone is 'free from offense' and 'nobody can be offended?' The supposed 'socialist' parties of Europe are notorious for this in their willingness to relinquish basic Enlightenment principles (i.e free speech, secularism & other civil liberties) to comfort smaller groups, especially the religious. It is sad that these parties, carrying the title of 'socialists,' are our only alternative to the right. This kind of liberalism is truly dangerous, because it has shown that it is willing to forgo our own freedoms all in the name of "improving public relations." Christopher Hitchens tackles this in one of his TV interviews much more eloquently than I have, in response to the Muhammad Cartoon Controversy of 2005; you can see that here.

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the left has been in shambles. Rather then use their former criticisms, which are still valid, and reinvent themselves, many have adopted the positions of 'liberalism' and 'humanitarianism,' instead of tackling the issue of poverty itself. They've adopted the position of 'stop climate change' instead of questioning the destructive environmental effects the accumulation of capital brings. They've adopted the position against racism, which is very important, but they have been completely ignoring its linkage to class and socio-economic status. Why is it now that the primary concern of any 'leftist' is legalizing marijuana, or global warming, or some other reformist position that fails to tackle the crux of the issue? I just don't understand. 

Another point, that was actually first mentioned by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, is this; the demographic of leftist politics is changing. The Tea Party has begun to resemble something like the workers' rallies of the 1960s, with the same enthusiasm and conviction. This is disheartening as it is tragic. The right has managed to shift the layman's blame onto 'big government' rather than 'big business' and all the liberal left has done is make concessions, especially in the United States. The worst aspect, however, is that these people are voting against their interests. They have been convinced that such nicely-packaged 'change' will heighten their economic condition, when in retrospect this 'change' includes disproportional benefits to the wealthy. They are supporting the plutocracy, and status quo, and they've grown too numb to realize it. Their concerns are misguided, and their reasoning is skewed, and to mend their hearts and minds into the direction it once was is a task that the left has to wrangle with if it wants any real change; but seeing the slump they are in now, I fear the future is rather dim. Perhaps a threat to western privilege is what is necessary to wake the people from their apathy or misdirection, but until that opportune moment arises I remain an involved pessimist.

Now that I've laid down some of the criticisms, perhaps it is more obvious why there could be no better time to be angry. Be angry at politics, be angry at the inequitable system, and be angry at the dehumanizing culture, will you! Sensible rage is perhaps what we need to rekindle that emotional connection to struggle that has recently been absent. However, the most crucial step is translating all this agitation into real subversive action, and that is what the modern left must capitalize on -- as Stéphane Hessel writes in his small affront manifesto, this is indeed a "Time for Outrage!"

The Paradox(es) of Yugoslav Communism & Sovietism

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely!" it is commonly said. This idiom has proved to be true on countless occasions, and the Communist experiments of Eastern Europe are no exception.

In 1957 Milovan Đilas, a prominent Yugoslav dissident and Communist thinker, published his magnum opus "The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System." In it, he exposed the material privilege the nomenklatura had in Soviet society and the paradox of what has become the 20th century Marxian interpretation of "dictatorship of the proletariat.'

Milovan Đilas believed that Eastern Communism was perpetually in a state of false transition; it was centralizing state power and rendering the revolution(s) fruitless. He was correct in his analysis, and he only validated the well-established idiom of power [quoted above] that was espoused by John Dalberg-Acton in the mid 1800s. The vanguards of 20th century Communist systems did little to nothing in bringing their respective society to classlessness. Rather, they created a new class of wealth and power that were perhaps more oppressive than the system they initially overthrew. This is the true paradox of the 20th century Marxist experiment.

But here lies the conundrum of Marxist thought; how is the transition to egalitarianism achieved, and is the irony of establishing dictatorship necessary in reaching the Communist ideal?

Milovan Đilas would argue that true egalitarianism would not be achieved through an Orwellian vanguard, and I tend to side with his sentiments. Eliminating democracy and ousting dissenters creates an environment based on fear and passivity. Karl Marx, in his criticism of capitalism, noted the systemic alienation of the proletariat from production. He hypothesized that the capitalist means of production separated the worker from the output of his labour and made him surrender his self-autonomy and destiny to maximize the surplus value of the bourgeois; In essence, ripping apart individuals [workers] from their right to be directors of their own actions. The Marxist experiments of the 20th century did very little to fix this and include the workers (i.e reincorporate them into the means of production), rather it perhaps even furthered their alienation, another ironic paradox, through obedience and mass-surveillance, making them puppets of the domineering state.

But what is the missing link to eliminating this unnatural alienating aspect in production? Simply, you must let people be free, rather then servile to the state (state socialism) or corporatist demands (capitalism). In revolutionary Catalonia this was tried and something radical was done to put production into the hands of the workers. Money was abolished, being replaced with a voucher system, and industry functioned on direct democracy. Goods were allocated effectively, and needs were met. Most importantly, some from of horizontal power was reached and there was solidarity in the workplace; it was a beautiful creation and lasted until its demise by the onslaught of fascism in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. While it existed it was a true living example of a tried attempt in eliminating alienation, as Marx described, and real progress toward classlessness.

The only similar attempt made by the self-described Communist states was in Yugoslavia, where Tito attempted to institute independent socialism which was one of the reasons for their split with the Soviet Union [known as the Informbiro period]. Milovan Đilas was very much involved, advocating workers' self management in state run industries. However after Đilas' imprisonment, the main architect of the workers' experiment was Edvard Kardelj who favored decentralized workers communes rather then state-controlled industries. Sadly, the project failed to get the traction it needed. Although Yugoslavia was distinctively better than its Communist counterparts in Eastern Europe and Asia, it still failed to give the workers the sufficient power over production they so deserved - however they should be applauded for attempting it, albeit insufficiently.

Thomas Jefferson, a champion of the Enlightenment, eloquently wrote:

 "...every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

This is the issue of 20th century vanguardism that we cannot overlook. The creation of a "New Class" is an major issue in leftist thought and we must be weary in calling for its future reestablishment. An examination of 20th century failures would be wise in formulating the basis for Post-Marxist thought, and we must always remember that freedom should never be compromised; because someday we might find little of it left. Slavoj Zizek in his essay "A Permanent Economic Emergency" published in the New Left Review writes,

 "What was wrong with 20th-century Communism was not its resort to violence per se—the seizure of state power, the Civil War to maintain it—but the larger mode of functioning, which made this kind of resort to violence inevitable and legitimized.." 

He goes on to say that when a state believes that it is the "instrument of historical necessity" it has no limitation on the terror it can inflict in achieving its ends. This is the danger, and I stand by localized, decentralized power as a probable solution; and if not that, a less oppressive vanguard of weaker stature that derives its true might from the regional workers' communes rather then from itself. This, I feel, is fair and truly progressive in the Marxian sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zizek's 'A Permanent Economic Emergency'
Tito on Self-Management

The Future Dilemmas of Keynesian Capitalism

Although I do not believe the current economic paradigm will fully collapse on its own, since that would be naïve, there are a few problems the modern market, and even the state, cannot properly solve and Keynesians should consider:

The issue of ecology and environmentalism; during the 2009 Copenhagen Summit this was especially evident, where the state and its corporate interests failed to make any law-binding decisions. This problem has been going on for a while, where the consensus has always been “We urge people to pollute less!” without enacting any legislation to enforce that. And the inevitable collapse and depletion of the oil and the energy market, predicted to happen around 2040, will prove to be destructive to globalization.

The issue of transhumanism and the rapid advancement of biogenetics is an issue the markets will fail to control and the state will probably succumb to, which would ultimately create a physical and intellectual divide between the wealthy and the poor, aside from their socio-economic status, because only the rich will have access to such enhancements.

The issue of intangible capital; the market has always functioned on physical capital that could be exchanged in the real world, but now with the rise of digital assets (which is now worth more than real world assets) all that is changing and it seems that the current laws on intellectual property and copyright are proving to be useless. The problem comes from that regulating this kind of capital and the digital market in general is inherently intrusive and stripping of liberty. The pressure of corporations on the state to enact further laws to limit internet freedom will surely come as a result, representing a new form of censorship and Orwellian infringement of basic rights (more info here).

The issue of new forms of apartheid; Zizek discussed this in a few of his interviews, in which there is a new class of people that are just excluded from the system completely. This is becoming increasingly prevalent in South America, Africa, Asia, and even in the United States, where there are artificial barriers being set up between the slums and the rest of the nation. There is little state control in these areas, and they are completely disregarded in the political sphere and there is little hope of incorporating them back into the system since they are so disproportionately poor. A good example of these “little Berlin Walls,” that Zizek calls them, are the slums of the Romani people (the Gypsies) in Europe, specifically Eastern Europe. Just look up modern antiziganism and you will find the oppressive hatred and exclusion the Gypsies face in modern day Europe, and their rights are completely ignored in the political sphere and even by the transnational bodies like the UN, which is apparent in their reaction to Roma refugees in the aftermath of the Kosovo war. 

And finally, the issue of state interventionism is a problem in itself. I think most Keynesians would agree that if that state did not intervene the market would abolish itself; the allocative capacity of the market is just not efficient enough, especially in a world where there are more overweight people (1.5 billion) than malnourished individuals (925 million), where food is being misallocated to areas where it is not needed because of unethical profits. Industries are attracted to areas with high levels of GDP. Since the ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’ after WW2, there has been substantial growth but with this economic expansion also comes increased state involvement. This destructively centralizes democratic power rendering it useless, and increases state power to bounds that could endanger democracy in itself. Authoritarian capitalism, or ‘capitalism with Asian values,’ as is present in Singapore and China, is at this point in time working more efficiently than liberal capitalism which is something we should all be concerned with. It used to be that argument that free markets will ultimately lead to democracy eventually, but now the authoritarian way is proving to be much more efficient in many respects and that liberal argument for capitalism may soon be disproved.

Man of the Ages

Slavoj Zizek expresses his contempt for flowers, especially tulips.