| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« An Open Letter to Narendra Modi | Main | Monday Poem »

March 11, 2013

If I were Slavoj Zižek

by Leanne Ogasawara

ZizekLast month here, my illustrious 3QD associate Evert Cilliers (aka Adam Ash) asked the following question: Can America survive what our 1% and their useful idiots and the dems have done to us?

His answer, in short, is no. He says: 

We used to be a Ford economy: at the outset Ford decided to pay his workers enough money to be able to afford the cars they made. Today we're a Walmart economy: Walmart doesn't pay its workers enough wages for them to get off food stamps. We're forced to live on credit. When our 1% of rich folks inflated the housing bubble to create their fraudulent derivatives, regular folks had enough equity in their homes to finance their living standards. For a short while. Then that Ponzi scheme collapsed. Today we Americans don't get paid enough for us to have an economy. The rich have plucked the goose so bare, there's nothing left but the bones. 

Nothing but bones about it. I arrived back to the US after twenty years overseas during the height of the Occupy Movement. Two decades is not all that long, and yet the change in America was staggering. I was only surprised the Occupy Movement was as restrained as it was. I have heard it said that during the time I was away occured the largest transfer of wealth in this country's history. I don't know if that is true or even close to being true, but that one class of the population had grown significantly wealthier to an exponential degree while the majority had sunk to a "nothing left but bones" state, I think is undeniable.  

When I left, this country was just as Cilliers describes: a Ford economy. As he suggests, there has always been upper management versus labor/staff and ruling elite versus the masses--but back in the old days, the non-elite could basically make a living, had benefits, and could survive. That is, a family could manage and their children be educated on the salary of factory line worker. Also at the time I left, medical bills didn't often completely wipe a family out either.

What on earth happened when I was away?

I am coming from Japan's lost decade. Arriving in Tokyo during the Bubble Years, I was there as the economy shrank and people had to tighten their belts big time. However, I can attest that even during the worst-of-the-worst of the so-called Lost Decade, not only did Japan continue to maintain its excellent national heathcare system, fabulous school lunch programs and tenable social safety net welfare system, but it also managed to invest very intelligently in domestic infrastructure. I was translator on the eJapan project/Cabinet Secretariat for about four years starting in 2001; and for the most part, Japan followed through in the policies laid out at the same time. I know from my work that government was also strongly involved in high speed train technologies, robotics as well as a program to begin English language degree programs at major universities all during these lost years. So, while times were very rough and my life in japan also had that "bare bones' feeling to it, I never had anxiety like I do now regarding healthcare, job security and social safety nets.

Zizek (1)Coming home here and seeing how things were now in the US, I kept wondering why aren't people protesting more massively?

If I was Zizek I would be working on an argument to unpack how things like New Age versions of Buddhism and the Apple empire are now functioning as "the new opium of the masses." I mean, sheesh. 

Last month, I was working on a translation about the pro-democracy movement in China, and the author's argments were framed in what could be called the “democratization is premature” stance that has become the mainstream approach of intellectuals in East Asia, which states that without economic development, democracy is premature. While I am not making the argument that democracy categorically requires a solid middle class or a certain GDP, I would like to suggest that without a strong middle class that democracy will be undermined to some degree (and we are now seeing that in the form of corporate interest and campaign finances directly affecting laws and indirectly affecting the democratic process). Income inequality also undermines the culture in other even more significant ways as well. 

++

Are We Rome?

According to Cullen Murphy, one of the most insideous ways our society has been transformed over the past, say, twenty years [to more resemble ancient Rome before its decline], is in what he calls privatization. He uses Blackwater (spit, spit) as one of his main examples of how a vital function of the nation is being sub-contracted to a corporation, which does not have much oversight from the government. This is something that began during the Reagan years, but from diplomacy to Intelligence and from merceneries to the post office, we are seeing a major "weakening of the body politic through various forms of privatization."

 This sub-contracting is not just something happening to government services, but the corporate world has also taken on this model so that we now have a situation where efficiency ---in the form of short-term quarterly performance-- has become the new bottom line. It wasn't always so, you know. Now, it is the shareholder who holds all the cards. Long gone are the days when a company had in its own interest the responsibility of taking care of its employees and contributing to the local community, from which it derived its own livlihood.

Yes, this is the Walmart Economy.

Murphy declared that Rome had totally lost its "we're in this together" spirit--and it is not a big leap to see the same disappearance of communitarian values and the Greater Good in our own society. 

Nassim Taleb brilliantly writes about the need of having skin in the game in both business and government. In a nutshell--in my opinion, this is at the root of our current state of malign. From drones to corporate risk management to policy, we have a situation whereby the ruling elite class no longer has skin in the game --not in public policy, foreign policy or corporate policy. Murphy had a number in his book, which I don't have handy but it was something like, in the late 1950s almost 50% of Princeton graduates went into the military-- to serve. Even in Vietnam, known as a working man's war, the children of the elite were known to go too. Now, the disconnect between the educated elite and the military or the corporate elite and those in the community is complete. And Taleb is exactly right that this points to the fact that something is rotten in Denmark; for as he rightly (and significantly) states, an immoral act can be characterized by a willingness when we open others to the great risk, which we are ourselves reaping the benefits from.   

Where this is different than Rome, I would argue, and where Murphy didn't have it quite right is in the ontological. It is true that the Roman elite, ensconsed in their villas, came to have no real skin in the game anymore in public policy. Rome-in-decline was characterized by the existence of two separate cultures: the elite rulers versus the non-Roman, non-elite merceneries and imperial commanders abroad. By the end, the military had so little in common with the elite that their obedience came to be for their own commanders, rather than the good of the empire. 

I don't think the same thing is going on in Contemporary America, though--as I do not see two separate cultures here. Not one bit. I think we are all dwelling in the culmination of what Heidegger called the technological understanding-of-being. Accordingly, in viewing the world as only in terms of utility, everything becomes a resource to be used efficiently--even our own lives are judged in these terms (how can I be the best me I can be?) In such a world, greater good, stakeholder claims, social justice, and cultural achievements--along with other medievalisms-- have gone by the wayside. And that is not all. For this is also something being actively exported by the global elite. 

I have a friend who says that, like in Great Gatsby America, the pendulum has swung too far in one direction; but that reaching a point where the bottom cannot hold, the pendulum will swing back and balance achieved in America again.

Being ten years older than him and steeped in Heidegger, I morosely disagree.  

In what is a now famous interview published posthumanously with Der Spiegel, Heidegger gave a gloomy description of the course of modern civilization. After years of arguing that the new technological civilization had taken meaning out of our lives and "instead replaced it with the main signifiers of advanced capitalism such as use-value, profit, power, wealth, efficiency, production and productivity," he ended the interview by saying:

“Only a god can still save us”

Adding that through poetic thinking and discourse, we can prepare "for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline; so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god.”

That the excesses of capitalism are undermining the health of this nation seems to be a fact. But there is an ontological component to this as well. And, as Ibrahim Kalim aptly puts it: 

The point is that we as human beings are increasingly becoming part of a system that defines our humanity and morality according to instrumental value and nothing else.

But reality offers more possibilities than use-value and will to power.

                                                                                                    For José.

 

Posted by Leanne Ogasawara at 01:30 AM | Permalink

Comments

Humans as mere use-values. Tools. We have become our technology. I really like you getting Heidegger in on this.
Evert aka Adam Ash

Posted by: Adam Ash | Mar 11, 2013 8:33:56 AM

I don't think Zizek will rescue your apple-pie view of capitalism. Have you ever read any Zizek? Try his Introduction to 'Zizek presents Robespierre - Virtue and Terror' to get an idea of what he would like for our future: "our task today is to reinvent emancipatory terror"
And not to pick at things too much - I don't agree with what you believe Heidegger is saying: 'Only a god can still save us' This was late in his career- he was dried up - his philosophy was leading nowhere except back on itself - he was even more incoherent that he normally was - plus he was still a stinkin' Nazi.

Posted by: SteveRR | Mar 11, 2013 8:58:11 AM

Thank you, Leanne :)

Posted by: Pepito | Mar 11, 2013 10:57:48 AM

Great piece. Wage inequality and all its attendant ills certainly have gotten much worse the last 20 years, but I think it actually goes back further. The great divide started during the Carter years. I do believe what your friend says is right-- the pendulum will swing back.

Shame that the Occupy movement was so formless, vague, and ultimately disappointing. A lost opportunity…and these things don’t bubble up every day. It became largely about internal process. But even an anarchist movement needs leaders, concrete objectives, organizing and a program for achieving things.

Posted by: Jake | Mar 11, 2013 11:52:40 AM

Hi Jake, Always wonderful to hear from you!! You know, I love my colleague's writings--did you see his piece this week If Only We Had a Leader Like Chavez? For me, his postings somehow capture how America feels to an outsider or to someone coming back after a long time. The feeling of, “How is this possible???” (Thinking of ridiculous healthcare situation but also the Walmart economy. If this were truly a case whereby the ruling elite is acting cut off from the rest of us, then I agree with you and my friend (as well as with Cullen Murphy) that we have a situation of two cultures ripping the country apart (ie what you call the "great divide"). If, however, it is not two cultures but rather one culture; one in which has come to value everything in terms of resources to be efficiently utilized, then I would not expect the pendulum to swing back too much. (That is, certain restraints on short-term performance could be put in place but I wouldn't expect to see changes in values or different priorities coming forth, like for example values prioritizing greater good or the environment over, say, sort term profit). The media’s treatment of Chavez or Mujica is telling really. Thank you so much for reading!

Posted by: Leanne Ogasawara | Mar 11, 2013 12:10:17 PM

The pendulum may well swing back. But do not forget: the way back is through China - so don't hold your breath.

Posted by: sjg | Mar 11, 2013 12:16:17 PM

I enjoyed the article. Aristotle says philosophy begins with wonder; perhaps politics should begin in outrage. There is certainly much to be outraged about in contemporary America. But we should also recognize the obvious way in which it differs from Rome, 18th century France, etc.: a much larger percentage of the population have reasonable incomes and comfortable lives. So while the poverty, unemployment, lack of free health care, etc. are indeed inexcusable in such a rich country, most workers have far more to lose than their chains.

Posted by: Emrys Westacott | Mar 11, 2013 8:03:23 PM

As a person involved with both (but not one who could be described as a "fan"), I don't think that either Buddhism or Apple has anything like enough importance in U.S. society to be responsible for this political situation, which I deplore as much as you do.

I think the problem is just that conditions are not presently ripe for a movement that will really have an impact on the situation. Occupy was a good try, but it fizzled like a damp match and damp kindling wood. When conditions are right (the wood dries out) a fire will break out. But we can't just sit around hoping that it will happen any moment. It might take decades; if so, we'll just have to live through them.

Posted by: JonJ | Mar 11, 2013 9:10:18 PM

Oh, Jon, of course, I was not saying Apple or Buddhism is somehow responsible for these problems. I wasn't even suggesting any causality. I think technology and religion are neutral (for the most part), and it is only in our relationship to them that they gain real meaning. Zizek has, in fact, explored the manner in which Buddhism serves as the spiritual backing of the global elite, but I think he makes some huge wrong turns--namely in suggesting that there is something inherent to Buddhism that causes these problems. Like you, I disagree.

However, that Apple, for example, illuminates a certain style of being in the world (not just specific patterns of production but that it also highlights a mode of being whereby technology is seen as something to empower power and that the latest versions are necessary), this is something that Apple doesn't have a patent on of course... and yet as a brand and as a style, it is particular to our age, I think. That is to really suggest that these have become our modern gods (and maybe at the same time they exist as a kind of modern opium of the masses?) An argument could be made at least...

Posted by: Leanne Ogasawara | Mar 11, 2013 11:19:13 PM

Zizek has a point about Buddhism in the West inculcating a passivity in the face of consumerism and the commodification of the self.
This is, of course, anathema to the Buddha's teachings, but the effects have infiltrated US culture in very subtle ways.
Before and during WW2 several Zen Buddhist masters in Japan endorsed their country's expansionism and militarism. These same masters have deeply influenced Buddhism's spread in the US.

The influence is almost invisible but much more pervasive and powerful than one might think.
Shangri-la idealisations aside, there is a legacy of right wing beliefs in many Buddhist sects (not all by any means) in the US.

Posted by: jacob | Mar 12, 2013 12:27:33 AM

I agree, Jacob--and thank you for your comment. In my opinion, compared at least to what I saw all those years in Japan-- in the West, Buddhism becomes a kind of self-beautification project (Yoga can as well though I would say yoga never really becomes a worldview or religion in the same way here), and it is this aspect that really can lead to precisely the passivity in the face of consumerism and the commodification of the self that you describe, which is--as you say--anathema to Buddhist teachings. Cheers.

Posted by: Leanne Ogasawara | Mar 12, 2013 12:44:51 AM

I'd love to know what anyone thinks the blitherings of Zizek have to do with anything. He makes critiquing capitalism sound like fun for a certain kind of person who likes, on the one hand, over-complex structures of cultural allusion, and on the other, 'daring' references to the kind of unrepentant ends-over-means instrumental violence that served the Bolshevik project so 'well'.

What his fans don't seem to realise is that, in the kind of systemic collapse they might like to happen, they would either end up as gulag-fodder for the thug-regime that would emerge, or perhaps worse still, turn into such self-serving, self-justifying canting thugs themselves. There has never been a thoroughgoing 'world-historical' revolution that did not end up persecuting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people in pursuit of its dream - you can take your examples anywhere you like from the USA in the 1700s to China in the late 1940s-60s.

In the present-day context, where there is absolutely no prospect, especially in the USA, of the pro-capitalist classes [including the tens of millions of dangerously right-wing gun-owners] going down without a fight, Zizek's approach is almost calculatedly futile - indeed, I suspect it is calculated, to generate the greatest degree of self-satisfaction for him, and the least danger of actually being called on to engage in a constructive political process.

He is a boil on the arse of progressive politics, and if anyone can't see that, they are just a pimple sitting alongside him.

Posted by: Dave | Mar 12, 2013 7:00:31 AM

Many valid points made but why resort to Heidegger (especially his inane and desperate “Only a god can still save us”) and the arch-buffoon Zizek?
And is it worth pointing out the false dichotomy of 'god vs use-value'? There are alternatives.
How about referencing the solid good sense of Anthony Appiah instead?

Posted by: DonF | Mar 12, 2013 8:45:14 AM

Heidegger is considered one of the most important modern philosophers—so there is no use dismissing him without an explanation since greater minds than ours do not dismiss him. In any case, I hold up Heidegger because I love Heidegger (I only use Zizek because like many woman I find him extremely exciting). As for the false dichotomy, Don, just because you say it, doesn’t make it so. I would suggest that it is no false dichotomy at all (if you take the time to follow the line of his argument) but in the end, you are the one making the claim of false dichotomy so why not make an argument for it? I like Anthony Appiah too. Very much. I would suggest that sometimes good common sense is anything but that, but in any case, I use Heidegger and Zizek because it was fun and interesting for me.

As to the man with the boils on his buttocks above, I think one thing about Heidegger and Zizek is that while it is true, their works could never be used as “how to” manuals (indeed, it is very true, as you said, there is nothing prescriptive about their stuff) still there is a method to the madness of Continental philosophers and their work does not avoid any discussion of power or class relations, of political or social conflict, in favor of apparently neutral and impersonal forces. They are not social scientists. They are doing something different and while it is not prescriptive per se, I would suggest that America is also a little lost because it does not value continental philosophy, art and letters. To wit, Herr H’s “Only a God can save us”...?

Posted by: Leanne Ogasawara | Mar 12, 2013 11:03:46 AM

Thank you, Leanne, for your reply.

I think it is dangerous to promote the notion that "Only a god can save us." Far from it, only getting beyond gods altogether can save us.

Obfuscators such as Zizek allow such ideas to spread. He's utterly irresponsible.
If you want to critique use-value and other instrumental ideas, then why not point readers to writers who value clarity such as Sandel and the aforementioned Appiah?
Heidegger and Zizek may be 'fun' as you put it, but their influence is pernicious.

Posted by: DonF | Mar 12, 2013 8:25:10 PM

Hi Don, I must confess that I do adore Sandel as well. That said, I am confused as to your reaction concerning only a god can save us. Let us back up for a second. Heidegger is making a move away out of his obsessive concern about technology (the technological understanding of being that sees everything as a resource to be used). And he is positing that only a returning to *shared meaning* will save us. I think for Heidegger the shared meaning would be necessarily transcendent and poetic. I don’t know if you had time to follow my link above on poetic thinking and discourse, but rather than obfuscating, he is using the poetic language to make his point. It is poetic and illuminatory language. Whether Sandel or Heidegger, what reasons do you have for believing that getting beyond gods is the only thing that can save us? This is to ask that without shared meaning (which are not just communitarian values alone but values tied to a kind of transcendent ontological understanding), what is left but consumerism and nihilism? This is not religion or theology per se. In fact, Heidegger was fascinated by Japan and Japan is on paper an atheist nation. Personally speaking, I have been stunned at how Christmas in California has been transformed—gone is the shared meaning and communitarian practices and what is left? The scariest consumption I have ever seen. Things might be different where you are but here in LA, people are far more environmentally thoughtless and disconnected to the earth and each other now than twenty years ago when i left. I totally agree with Heidegger that a move back toward a shared calendar and shared meaning, some focus on something beyond living life as some sort of project would be about the only possibility I can think of that would “save.” Robert Harrison did a great show with Tom Sheehan about Heidegger on Entitled Opinions (Standford radio) and the show kicks off with a discussion of who is the greatest modern philosopher. Both agree it must be Heidegger. And I bet Sandel would chime in likewise since a lot of his stuff must too be rooted in Heidegger. I don’t think Zizek or Heidegger are pernicious. I think they are both great philosophers who are working in the continental tradition.

Posted by: Leanne Ogasawara | Mar 12, 2013 9:33:38 PM

Thanks again for your considered reply, Leanne. You might be interested to hear that I've been living in Japan for nearly 20 years.
I'm concerned about the notion of "returning" to shared meanings, and that, in fact, is my gripe with communitarians. I admire Sandel and like his writing but oppose his communitarian bent. What we need is shared rules, shared laws. Shared meanings will then inevitably emerge, but in new forms of community, hopefully not in imagined communities like the nation. I'm strongly opposed to god talk because shared meanings must not be founded on falsehood. Educated and informed people cannot be expected to consent to religious doctrines at this stage in history. (Alasdair Macintyre and Charles Taylor embrace Catholicism to my utter dismay.)
You write that "for Heidegger the shared meaning would be necessarily transcendent and poetic", but what does this mean? Could you give me an instance of what this might be?
Poetry is wonderful, but some love Auden and loathe Eliot, some vice versa (you may think this is a non sequitur). As for transcendence, fine, we can all recognize the value of it, but how can we agree on a shared meaning or even its greatest expression? Some adore Bach, others prefer Schubert. Poetic feeling and notions of transcendence don't lend themselves to agreement.
And another problem is how such shared meanings, were they to be found, are to be enforced. By whom? On what authority?

Posted by: DonF | Mar 12, 2013 10:11:22 PM

(Actually, I listened to that Entitled Opinions show about four months ago!)

Posted by: DonF | Mar 12, 2013 10:15:30 PM

I am so glad to hear you heard the Entitled Opinions show!! As you know, that “only a god can save us” thing was not really formally stated and only was published after his death. I don’t believe Heidegger was endorsing that but rather was lamenting that there really is no going back. Like you said, there is now no returning to how things were. Sure philosophers in an effort to move away from consumerism and nihilism can individually embrace Catholicism or Confucianism (Confucianism as a remedy for Mammonism in China was a recent paper I translated) but it would be impossible, in my opinion, for the neighborhood where I am here in LA to return to the sense of community and much closer relation to nature it had here 20 years ago. That sense of community is gone and when traditional values and practices (as shared) break down, it allows for a Walmart economy to emerge. In the old days, a company was much more embedded and had skin in the game in the communities where it lived. And this is something that was also very much part of my life in Japan, and I feel very isolated and kind of “flattened” (to use another Heideggerean term) being back here now. There was no authority choosing the poetic sensibility or the calendar of festivals and events, the values and sense of being in this together in my town in Japan. It was organic (despite power relations, the celebration of the cherry blossoms was not handed down from above).

Now though, without shared meaning and without communitarian values, indeed all we can look to is the law. No one that I know of thinks it is possible to go back or that a god can save us now... it is just a lament that translates to meaning, “we are doomed.” Macintyre, Taylor, Nussbaum and Ogasawara (hehe) all grasp at religion and also especially communitarian values in order to remedy the isolation and dis-connectedness to community and the earth but if you read Dreyfus’ All Things Shining, you will see how impossible the entire project is.

Posted by: Leanne Ogasawara | Mar 12, 2013 10:54:11 PM

In a review of Alan Wolfe's 'The Future of Liberalism', George Scialabba wrote:

"If science really and truly discredited liberalism, then the only honest response would be: so much the worse for liberalism. But, of course, it does not. The distinction between nature and culture that Wolfe brandishes so menacingly is far more subtle and tenuous than he recognizes. His version, like the obsolete distinction between body and soul, implies that we cannot be both purely physical and meaningfully moral. And yet we are. Whatever "free will" means, it does not mean that choices are uncaused. Someday our descendants will emerge from the metaphysical mists, shaking their heads and wondering what all that philosophical fuss was about."

What I take from this in the context of this discussion is that philosophy, to be credible and interesting, must work together with science. Am I wrong in thinking that Heidegger didn't integrate his ideas with the discoveries of (let's say the first half) of twentieth century science, and that, rather, he led many into the very metaphysical mists Scialabba warns against?

Posted by: DonF | Mar 13, 2013 12:41:13 AM

I think you are right that Heidegger was basically anti-technology. But in the end, he was only really concerned with ontological issues so rather than dismissing technology as a practice he was resisting the commodification of people and the world. And, I am not so sure Heidegger thought that about being physical versus being moral since he was so taken up with embodied practices, right? I myself am certainly not anti-science or anti-law, and yet I think the Heidegger (and Zizek) are right to look at the cultural reasons behind what could have allowed for this state-of-affairs. If community health and greater good, for example, were the bottom lines then we would not have seen the emergence of this level of economic disparity and cruelty (in the sense of a rich country not providing for the basic needs of its citizens—shouldn’t all children have access to basic healthcare—including vision and dental?) And if the society doesn’t demand it instead prioritizing individual liberties or being overly taken up with iPhones what does that say about the culture? Laws might remedy to a degree of course. I mean, today as I walked passed the grammar school and saw the usual line of SUVs each waiting to pick up one kid and many had their engines idling...people without a sense of “we’re in this together” really require the law I suppose? This is not necessarily my opinion but I will pass it along since it is fresh in my mind. Last month I worked on a paper about the children victims of the tsunami and nuclear disaster. At the end, the scholar (anthropologist) said something to the effect that what she believes is required of us is to step away from the egoism of our current utilitarianism and try and get back our sense of awe in nature. She said something like, no one wants to do away with utility and science but the time has come to restore some balance with the earth and in our communities and to try and life more inter-dependently (in Japanese a big buzzword is kyosei (“harmonious coexistence”). Anyway, I am rambling... too sleeepy. Cheers.

Posted by: Leanne Ogasawara | Mar 13, 2013 1:25:24 AM

Good thoughts, but I think the question of the military is a bit more open. There is a very big difference between a citizen army and a professional one, and for all the good that having a core of paid, professional, career soldiers can have (and there are many benefits!), what we've seen in the U.S. is the creation of a military sub-culture, ever since the end of Vietnam, where recruiters are focusing on certain segments of the populace because they know they can get people to sign from there, and the whole culture is built around negotiating with the realities of military and post-service life. The military is no longer "the nation at war," it's "the people fighting for us," no longer "my neighbor got drafted" but "some redneck in Arkansas, who 'I' have never met or ever cared about, signed up". And as Mark Shea posts a good amount on his blog, the ruling class is screwing them over big time. And whenever that happens, it only takes a general realizing "I have weapons, and they do not" to begin the "Civiles Belli".

And don't get me started on Zizek, the man makes me want to dieeeeeeeeee.

Posted by: Poor Jeremiah | Mar 13, 2013 1:59:54 AM

To return to my point above, the precise point about Zizek is that he IS prescriptive - he is a self-described Leninist, who has repeatedly advocated violent revolution and the dictatorship of a vanguard party. Just because it's such a lunatic position that it sounds as if he can't mean it, doesn't mean we shouldn't accept that, since he constantly repeats it, he does indeed seem to mean it.

Posted by: Dave | Mar 13, 2013 4:50:56 AM

Dave, Zizek is no more prescriptive than I was above. He is not concrete and he says it himself all the time that he doesn't really work in details. I am in the end a lot more worried about healthcare and employment issues than I am about a Marxist revolution right now, so I a guess I don't share your concern. Yes, it can always be worse but Zizek is just not on my list of dangers.

Posted by: Leanne Ogasawara | Mar 13, 2013 10:33:16 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

seth edenbaum on Habermas, Adorno, Politics

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

Raza Husain on Think About Nature

Raza Husain on Getting Smarter

johnnyred on Getting Smarter

Lou on Throwing away ancient wisdom, painting with sound and staying awake: a conversation with radio dramatist and ZBS Foundation president Thomas Lopez

Sundar on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

flowers rainbows on Lift up your voices: The century-long battle for women's freedom

mr.ed on wagner in new york?

mirel on Here’s how to change the world

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

X on Getting Smarter

Ross Williams on Getting Smarter

oroboe on Lennon's "Imagine" and McCartney/Wings' "Band on the Run" overlaid: One way of reuniting (some of) the Beatles

Richard H. Randall on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

seth edenbaum on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

waqnis on Mortify Our Wolves

nogodrod on KFC smugglers bring buckets of chicken through Gaza tunnels

waqnis on Here’s how to change the world

Fernando on Mortify Our Wolves

seth edenbaum on The case against empathy

Dredd on Mortify Our Wolves

Max on Here’s how to change the world

Rohana on Mortify Our Wolves

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed