New article by Zizek

thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-libidinal-economy-of-singularity/
Anyone read it yet? Seems to be a nice, direct rebuttal to/dissection of accelerationism, not just his usual "accelerationism is just perennial tripe" stuff.

Attached: 031750312.jpg (299x169, 11K)

Other urls found in this thread:

non.copyriot.com/is-it-possible-not-to-love-zizek-on-slavoj-zizeks-missed-encounter-with-deleuze/
thenewobjectivity.com/pdf/marx.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

what a retarded nigger. no wonder reddit praises him.

Attached: 1565038847124.png (753x960, 29K)

Nobody reads here, user.

I doubt that, user.

Attached: 310573125892.png (371x343, 176K)

I like the design of the page.

Take this to Bunkerchan. Yea Forums is a trad fascist board

reddit praises him? nah senpai

Acc/ is based on deleuzean metaphysics and historical processes.

Zizek is a card-carrying psychoanalyst and, what’s worse, a Lacanian.

Of course he’s going to attack the former via his totalizing nonsensical worldview.

>zizek is opposed to solo-deleuzian metaphysics, much less historical processes
>zizek is a totalist

Well I didn't really understand most of this but my takeaway was that we cannot treat leisure as an activity of passive consumption of pleasure/sensation because this allows its co-opting and alienation by capital(ism).

Taken from the article
>fight my sinful sexual desires by painfully whipping myself, but then I start to enjoy self-whipping itself because, in a negative form, it reminds me that the prohibited desires are still active in me
Or, you know, by abstaining from pleasure and over-dosing your pleasure neuro-receptors in your brain, your more able to enjoy simple tasks rather than the complex and extreme.

Zizek is cucked, read Bataille instead

Attached: 2009D548-A7A4-4A91-8ACF-444DCD0E8C52.jpg (3840x2160, 454K)

Y-you think Zizek is a Yea Forumstard?
He seems pulsed into onto our memeosophy...

Attached: Nick's Land.png (171x266, 39K)

>deleuzean metaphysics
So mechanical Moloch?

Attached: Moloch Metropolis.jpg (480x360, 15K)

>illiterate greentext meme
>”reading” into things

You seem to be too familiar with reddit

>waaaa waaa my precious accelerationism waaa
kys faggots

Accelerationism is implying there is a limit to capital

There isn't

Attached: 1564865761004.jpg (640x480, 59K)

>t. someone who has never read Freud
You'd understand the pleasure principle if you had. You can stick to your cryptoneostoic poetry about sadomasochism for now, leave the actual theory to theorists like Land and Zizek.

That's D&G metaphysics, or Materialist Deleuze.

Yeah that always bothered me with Land's (Delueuze's) assumption about capital.
What if it's a bottomless pit with no teleological endpoint? Did they ever address this?

Personally, I always considered it quasi-metaphysics; it's materialism with a paint job.
Up there with machine "souls", simulation theory stuff and transhumanistic cyborg gods.

This is why Land advocates for AI singularity

Except I have read The Interpretation of Dreams, and it’s all garbage except for Freuds ability to prove the unconscious exists and that free will generally doesn’t exist in any meaningful way.

No it doesn’t. That’s a possibility (and yeah, admittedly there are some political motivations underpinning the optimistic interprstation of that) but by definition there is a proliferation of possibilities via acceleration. Hence the upshot of the D&G metaphysical backdrop. A true accelerationist doesn’t get into the game to end capitalism or some counterinsurgent revolutionary motive like that; rather, the impulse comes from recognizing a total inefficacy of counter processes and the sheer fact of acceleration. The whole “contradictions of capital”-bit that some optimistic Deleuzeans run with could very well be a true schizophrenic state i.e. a state of total anguish by comparison to our current modes of being. The latter cannot be emphasized enough.

Well, you haven’t done enough reading. Approaching Spinoza or the Chinese might be a better way to start conceiving of D&G’s metaphysics.

But that's wish fulfillment based on huge explorations of technology.
It's as I mentioned, quasi-metaphysical: like hoping a material messiah-God springs to life due to technological prophesies.

I just don't buy it. For all we know, we could be heading for a tech stagnation once we hit the very real physical limitations and laws of our reality.

Attached: s curve.png (648x432, 15K)

>explorations
extrapolations

(spellcheck is a terrible editor)

I’m going to add on as well that Zizek isn’t a proponent of accelerationism because that would be benefitting the far right. Being a marxist, it’s in his advantage to keep the far right at bay, in a trance, away from stirring up the political spheres causing unrest and upheaval. Zizek’s team (for the most part) are already in control. He would not benefit from an accelerated collapse of social order; moreso Zizek prefers the slow decline in order to further deteriorate that far right under current neo-liberalism.

Accelerationism gives the far right the advantages of bringing bringing the end sooner so that they still have the larger population numbers and rather larger capital accumulation than non-white entities. It also allows the far right to prevent the left from setting the ending to their own terms of when and where it all goes down.

Why not point to Jung's collective unconsciousness while your at it.
I understand it, I just don't agree with it as it conflicts with my conceptions of metaphysical truths: particularly I don't agree with Spinoza's definition of God.

In the end, it's just their opinions.

Oh, you're insane. Your first response was better. Not for political reasons, by the way, you're just flatly delusional in a generic sense. That's disappointing.
The kind of materialist totalism that they espouse is impossible to reconcile with authentic/scientific pluralism (and no matter how anti-positivist, irrationalist, or even atavist we get, we remain scientific pluralists every step of the way).

You’re the delusional faggot who has no rebuttal. Suck off you sadistic philosophers some more you sophist.

>authentic/scientific pluralism
The modern day assault on lived experience and observation is a real tragedy these days.
Like some "philosopher-scientist-high-priest" telling you that you have no free-will and smugly pulls out a Power Point to convince you why.
It's pure absurdity at this point.

The assault on metaphysical senses and experience is particularly egregious, insulting, and dehumanizing.

I read a bit of one of zizeks books a few months ago, his most famous one, it was all about Marx, Freud, Lacan, and the similarities between the synthetic structure of capitalism and psychoanalytic concepts. Didnt pay too much attention and have forgotten what he said but I remember thinking that it made a lot more sense and was more interesting than he sounds likewhen you guys post modern videos of him.

I read some recent article he wrote about europe, migration, the right, etc. and it was very underwhelming. A weird mix of prog and commie talking points that didnt seem to actually have a stance, and he would really say what he thought the immigration policy should be.

Thanks user, I really needed to know i'm not alone in thinking this.

zizek misunderstands multiplicity, the infinite, difference, etc. he is an Absolute philosopher, a squatting Slovenian Hegel, an opportunistic Badiou bungler in the ontological dept. Much of what he has to say about the character of deleuze’s thought at any stage is doing it a disservice.

And convincing people they have “free will” is doing a disservice by feeding their ego and further entrapping them in a constant spiral of desire and despair.

You say it’s a tragedy, explain why.

>curtailing people's agency is doing humanity a great service

Laffo, techno-cultists get the rope

I don't read Bataille, you can keep him.
There's room for metaphysics. It's easy to be triggered by the "public intellectual" crowd being patently retarded, but even Einstein loved Spinoza's God (however thoroughly underpinned by materialist totalism).

Encouraging people to not rely on “free will”, “god”, “spirit”, and “self-control” is a disservice?

You’re a slave to your ego.

>I don’t read things that challenge my worldview
Dad didn’t teach you very well, did he

For the exact reason you just pointed out:
> convincing people they have “free will” is doing a disservice
It's dehumanizing people into biological machinery using sophistry, handwavings, and lies. Everything in this model reduces the human condition to mere chemistry, making all choice and consequence purely deterministic and with no consequence or meaning. Meanwhile, it ignores a reality where there are people in positions of power and authority than can affect lives (for better or worse). I'm sure all the advocates for determinism also have beliefs and political inclinations that are not arbitrary.

You are advocating for slavery and I don't think you are fully cognizant of the evil that is being preached: convincing PCs that they are really NPCs is wrong and evil. It ignores lived experience and synergy of whole producing greater phenomena than its constituent parts.
This was the same justification that was used to shoot dissidents in-between the eyes because they were merely "a pile of cells". It's the same justification to treat humanity as drones to fulfill political will. It's the same justification to strip agency and opinion from people and convince them that nothing they do is meaningful so just "give up" to whatever is demanded of them.

It's applied nihilism.
That's why it's a tragedy.

Bataille only challenges the challenged, and besides that he's just a stylist whose style I don't like.

You just shit yourself? *heh, it was always going to happen since the beginning of time, i can prove it because you just did it*

Attached: 1564528401850.jpg (500x500, 46K)

>Everything in this model reduces the human condition to mere chemistry, making all choice and consequence purely deterministic and with no consequence or meaning
Where is life’s meaning? Do I say you can’t be happy and still enjoy the pre-determines life for you? Instead you seem to want to resent and “fix” what is given, which seems to be an insult to god.

>You are advocating for slavery
All life is slavery, unless you are persuaded in suicide. I simply advocate for an updated programming of the human mind.

>convincing PCs that they are really NPCs is wrong and evil
Am I hurting you?

>It ignores lived experience and synergy of whole producing greater phenomena than its constituent parts
Which is what exactly? As far as I’m aware, humans exist solely for the purpose of the universe reaching higher states of “consciousness” or self-realization. It’s trying to solve itself through means of a program, and we are only a small part of that program.

>This was the same justification that was used to shoot dissidents in-between the eyes because they were merely "a pile of cells"
Get your moralizing faggotry out of here.

>It's the same justification to strip agency and opinion from people and convince them that nothing they do is meaningful so just "give up" to whatever is demanded of them
Science has already stripped any meaning whatsoever of a meaningful existence. Your attachment to ego and the sweet belief that your something “more than human” is clearly inflicting pain on your existence. Relax, take the redpill, and accept your predestined life

Attached: B61BB6AE-326A-4B90-8C5B-D16FD9461566.png (688x418, 585K)

late stage calvinism

I dont think meaning is dependent on free choice at all. The same way I get meaning from some piece of art, which I did not control, I get meaning from watching my life unfold, including my actions, and all the relations within, including something I used to term God but have kind of stopped using that word, because it's not really the Christian God, and only elicits confusion to be called that.

It also helps me have empathy for people because I get that they couldn't help it.

It is especially bizarre to know that even this awareness itself was just given to me randomly, but it makes me feel appreciative of what in life is beautiful, like it was a gift, even things I do myself seem given to me, and it makes the bad seem like a tragedy but not something to regret or be angry about because it is just that way.

Should we not put people in jail because of this?

don't rely on your own god-given intellect and power to cultivate yourself, listen to these expert opinions instead

Big fan, read BF Skinner and take the black pill

Which books?

I am not a fan of prison. I think rehabilitation, work camps, or the death penalty are better options, depending on the severity of the crime, the context in which it was committed, and the level of evidence available. Prisons are pointless, degrading, places that literally make criminals better at being criminals. Work camps are nowhere near as bad because they have an actual purpose to their lives instead of being treated like whatever the fuck prisoners are, I can think of almost no social institution as retarded, pointless, and counterproductive as prisons.

But yes I believe people should face consequences for their actions, because everything will fall apart if they don't. That doesn't mean you can't have empathy for them, even for the man sentenced to death.

this is the worst thread i've seen here in the last year.

i actually don't believe you, unless you browse this board very seldomly. There are entire threads of uncapitalized vague shitposts like the one you just made

he may have meant that it's the worst thread he bothered reading through, if so i can confirm. it took a turn for the stupid early and that turn became a giant scribble drawn by two or more retards who can't hold a pen. it's the kind of thread where 'that's wrong' bullet points go of while you're reading and once they bang past twenty, past thirty, past forty, coming from both sides and from third and fourth parties in corners, you stop counting and just listen and stare at the zinging noises and the puffs of idiot powder. other threads might be a bad line of dialog or a poorly framed shot but this one is the worst scene in the already terrible movie that is Yea Forums.

beyond freedom and dignity

Thank you

Go on.

>accelerationism is just perennial
I don't think this was ever his position

Zizek went to Paris 8, he knows Deleuze inside and out, and has been quite fruitful in adapting his idea of the virtual to ideology

pretty sure Zizek was a meme here long before Land was

>Zizek’s team (for the most part) are already in control.
hahahahaha literally where

I heard him refer to L/acc rhetoric that way, as in the "accelerationist" tendency to say that "capitalism is accelerating towards it's apex form/peak contradiction & is near to being surpassed if we can force it" can be found in most major left movements (even Lenin and Mao affirmed it).

His point was that we constantly expect capitalism to suffer from catastrophe and contradiction, but instead we should realize that operating on the edge of catastrophe and contradiction is the normal operating procedure for capitalism. it's like an "undead" force which resists every mortal blow to come back stronger. this doesn't mean capitalism is perennial, only that our theory of how it will die is far off

I didn't call capitalism perennial, I called the tendency towards acceleration (particularly as rhetoric) a perennial theme in major left movements. Of course it doesn't mean "capitalism is perennial", I don't even know what that means, and I definitely don't think we have a lot to offer each other.

oh well in that case no, Stalin and Mao were in no real way accelerationist; why would they need to be if they expected capitalisms imminent collapse? They figured they just needed to outlast capitalism

Now I hardly need to think at all, I can just look at your post and intuitively know. What does outlasting capitalism mean to you? Wait for some historical inevitability to kick into overdrive, some Diamat-Yaldaboath to reorder the cosmos? Maybe for the later stages of the USSR or PRC, but both Lenin and Mao were enamored with compounding the contradictions of capitalism to force the entire system into a death spiral.

>Zizek’s team (for the most part) are already in control

Attached: ziz.jpg (1200x871, 158K)

I didn't put Lenin in there for a reason, but Stalin and Mao it's pretty clear cut. Why as why outlasting capitalism means to me? Shouldn't you ask what it meant to them? What did Lenin/Stalin mean by imperialist capitalism? What did Mao mean by post WWII capitalism? They expected to outlast capitalism, regardless of whatever that might mean to me or them (or me).

Books for this?

hmm I only skimmed it but it seems like Zizek cant not think in terms of hegel and negation

going to be hard to critique /acc effectively like that

>the singularity will control/exploit our (sexual) desires so it’s just an evolution of capitalism
Not an accelerationist but this is hilarious

>Zizek the clown

non.copyriot.com/is-it-possible-not-to-love-zizek-on-slavoj-zizeks-missed-encounter-with-deleuze/
you really think so?

Yes, that I've read that piece and there is a lot of cope in it. It basically amounts to
>Zizek read Deleuze but still sounds like a Lacanian! Isn't that weird? It's almost like Zizek didn't agree with him!

Can you expand on that?

>accelerationism is just perennial tripe
but it fucking is, from land to boomers who think you'll die at 30 unless you have some quack throwing pills down your throat

What is all this drivel about a libidinal economy. Give me a break. That's one bullshit term.

It's been in use for at least 50 years

Accelerationism is very easy to debunk with marxism. Accelerationism is just reformism's retarded twin brother.

What is accelerationism?

Thr original Accelerationism is literally Marxist.

>Rather, it is the machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker, is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it; and it consumes coal, oil etc. (matières instrumentales), just as the worker consumes food, to keep up its perpetual motion. The worker's activity, reduced to a mere abstraction of activity, is determined and regulated on all sides by the movement of the machinery, and not the opposite. The science which compels the inanimate limbs of the machinery, by their construction, to act purposefully, as an automaton, does not exist in the worker's consciousness, but rather acts upon him through the machine as an alien power, as the power of the machine itself. The appropriation of living labour by objectified labour -- of the power or activity which creates value by value existing for-itself – which lies in the concept of capital, is posited, in production resting on machinery, as the character of the production process itself, including its material elements and its material motion. The production process has ceased to be a labour process in the sense of a process dominated by labour as its governing unity. Labour appears, rather, merely as a conscious organ, scattered among the individual living workers at numerous points of the mechanical system; subsumed under the total process of the machinery itself, as itself only a link of the system, whose unity exists not in the living workers, but rather in the living (active) machinery, which confronts his individual, insignificant doings as a mighty organism. In machinery, objectified labour confronts living labour within the labour process itself as the power which rules it; a power which, as the appropriation of living labour, is the form of capital. The transformation of the means of labour into machinery, and of living labour into a mere living accessory of this machinery, as the means of its action, also posits the absorption of the labour process in its material character as a mere moment of the realization process of capital. The increase of the productive force of labour and the greatest possible negation of necessary labour is the necessary tendency of capital, as we have seen. The transformation of the means of labour into machinery is the realization of this tendency.

-Karl Marx - The Fragment on Machines - from The Grundrisse (pp. 690-712)

There's a reason that this is the first essay in the Accelerationist Reader. Marx was the first to roughly outline the idea of machenic production as an active and accelerating circuit.

You can read the rest of that essay here if you like.
thenewobjectivity.com/pdf/marx.pdf

Attached: 3c9190635989cc16f843a4149ac44675eaae588c0a9a5864035467e11daab116.jpg (605x756, 66K)

Still doesn't make it any less dumb.

>LACAN IS SHIIIT
>delueze is ok tho
What are you on about?

>"the English unemployed did not become workers to survive, they - hang on tight and spit on me - enjoyed the hysterical, masochistic, whatever exhaustion it was of hanging on in the mines, in the foundries, in the factories, in hell, they enjoyed it, enjoyed the mad destruction of their organic body which was indeed imposed upon them..."

The best line from Lyotard's essay Libidinal Economy. Lost him a lot of his Marxist friends, but he was pretty much stating the obvious.

In any case, I know the term libidinal economy has been used in a ton of ways by a lot of different authors and theorists, but I think the ultimate idea here is an attempt to at least put some foothold on what the complex ecosystem of human desires/wants/goals/dreams looks like when mashed up against their physical/social/political/environmental/etc. situation, and that just never stops being interesting to people - whatever we decide to call it.

Attached: 3gwgli0r2b931.jpg (599x573, 56K)

>pack it in boys, anonymous called it dumb
>what?! b-but Lyotard, Baudrillard...
>it's over, he used the word dumb. burn all the research

How has this not been posted?

Attached: Accelerationism.jpg (1440x1109, 468K)

because you are the only one who posts it

Attached: Screenshot_20190808-124111__02__01.jpg (1080x7068, 1.87M)