elguwopismo [he/him]
Waluigi is the ultimate example of the individual shaped by the signifier. Waluigi is a man seen only in mirror images; lost in a hall of mirrors he is a reflection of a reflection of a reflection. You start with Mario – the wholesome all Italian plumbing superman, you reflect him to create Luigi – the same thing but slightly less. You invert Mario to create Wario – Mario turned septic and libertarian – then you reflect the inversion in the reflection: you create a being who can only exist in reference to others. Waluigi is the true nowhere man, without the other characters he reflects, inverts and parodies he has no reason to exist. Waluigi’s identity only comes from what and who he isn’t – without a wider frame of reference he is nothing. He is not his own man. In a world where our identities are shaped by our warped relationships to brands and commerce we are all Waluigi.
I mean tbh you’re gonna need to understand some psychoanalytic jargon to get some points of his. If you want to learn that stuff, and not get bogged down in a quagmire of Zizekian tengentiality: I’d recommend reading some Todd McGowan (or especially listening to his Why Theory podcast), Mari Ruti, or Alenka Zupancic(who I think is the most genuinely Marxist of the batch). Honestly the Lacanian shit is super interesting and I think everyone should understand it a bit, especially when there’s so much you can tie back into Dialectical Materialism. Once I could start drawing lines between Hegel, Marx, Freud, and Lacan (which are actually quite intuitive), I think it helped deepen my understanding of them as really pivotal figures, and all that has helped create a more cohesive understanding of the intertwined disciplines and movements which have emanated from or responded to their bodies of work. I don’t even know how I’d interpret some people differently if I hadn’t sorta stumbled into the Lacanian stuff early on: I think especially Althusser and Deleuze.
I would also really recommend the podcast Red Library, they were there the reason I turned away from being overly skeptical about Lacanians. I definitely had pretty much the same opinion as you, I get thinking Zizek is a bit of a spectacle and grift. No doubt the dude pumps out reactionary hot takes. Yet I’d definitely recommend still exploring the niche to which he belongs
You say that, @BASED_BALL, yet if I told you, “Hey I got a sweet Nick Land Meme stash and you ain’t seen it before,” you’d be begging for me to allow you to bath in the light of this beautiful cache of solar excrement (of course the most sublime assemblage: a wonderfully Byzantine multiplicity of excremental flows and forms of consumption and rexcrementation), which I am in possession of yet has slipped through your grasp thus far. In reality you cannot, nor can I, resist the allure of all those tempting, perverse signs and clinamen fluttering on the edges of the forms-of-life and labors we flow through; @BASED_BALL I want you to be honest with yourself, you know it, as do I, there is always the impulse to immersion within those excesses, those productive ensembles in raw combative antithesis to the negativity born of contradiction with nonexcessiveness, which certainly elude the flows of capture and control essential to the machinic territorialities of Democracy, or the so-called “Democratic Socialism” you so fraudulently claim here
Thank you for this and the above links. I feel like I spin myself in circles every time I see MMT shit on here and get frustrated with the soccdemery. Even if debt’s anthrpological origin is as a state mechanism, its function is to ensure the future realization of value for the appropriating class - which in a capitalist system is very important. Without TDotP with control over firms or a complete socialist transition, how will hyperinflation due to firms raising prices or capital flight or just natural resistance from capital be prevented in instituting these MMT analyses? That doesn’t even bring into account violent reaction and sabotage
Money is not a negation of consumers by the state, but the negation of the antithesis of producer and consumer who are brought into antithetical unity via the sphere of circulation for which the precondition of the state ensures equivalency in the process of realization, yet the state also contains as its precondition the opposition between productive forces and relations of production which drive the need for such a sphere in the first place.
The logic of accumulation, the banking model of education, and the logic of capitalist bureaucracy is all the ideological conviction that forceful imposition of the quantitative onto the qualitative turns all qualities into quantities. Thus they are obviously essentially endowed in their qualities, look at their quantities!!!
I think it’s supposed to be Luxemburgism, which I guess is something someone hell bent on not just calling themselves a marxist could call themselves, but I think there’s a reason I had to look this up on the wiki for a meme sub
What is
A crossov
???!