Capitalism's Fascistic Tendencies

Capitalism relies on a basic fantasy structure that leads to intrinsic disappointment. This requires someone to blame for the disappointment, which ends up supporting a fascistic move that identifies an enemy responsible for the failure to attain what the capitalist fantasy promises.

[@addammadd]

I think this lecture makes the case that unfortunately alluded Zizek in his recent interview with Robinson Erhardt where the host asked Zizek point blank why he believes psychoanalysis is useful in a sociopolitical context. I return to this lecture nearly monthly as I pursue my own studies and am immensely grateful for it. Thanks Todd.

[@flashman453]

T McG back again spitting that 🔥 about the brutality of Capital. Listen closely, engage intellectually and tell your friends. Fixing the climate means reckoning with capital and undoing capital

[@sramirez1906]

I had to come back to say that this is a great analysis. It sounds exactly right to the point of being self-evident (only we couldnt know that before Todd laid it out for us first). Thanks, Todd! I'm looking forward to your book.

[@sramirez1906]

Also, this calls to mind parallels between psychoanalysis and Zen Buddhism, where the aim of each is in some sense to arrive at a state of aimlessness. In Zen (as far as I understand it) that includes the abandonment of any notion that such a state could be permanent and would bring one enduring joy. In other words, they both teach acceptance of oneself as one is. Good stuff.

[@sramirez1906]

Lastly, the perfect example of capitalist subject is the aspiring retiree who accumulates under the assumption that he will one day be able to "enjoy without restraint," i.e., in retirement. Of course, this subjectivity is rooted in the capitalist social structure and so is not merely psychological. Retirement has been (perhaps no longer is) one of the few feasible ways for capitalist subjects to attain some degree of real (albeit individual) freedom.

[@toddmcgowan8233]

@@sramirez1906 I love this point. I hadn't thought about retirement in these terms, but I personally know quite a few people who take up this position. Thanks.

[@sramirez1906]

@@toddmcgowan8233 Sure thing! And thank you for the thought-provoking content. Oh, and there's the naive graduate student who still believes in academia and fantasizes about the unrestrained enjoyments of tenure. "I'll finally have the time and energy to write that book." Many other examples, I'm sure.

[@WeBreakTheChain]

22:03 "What defines a socio-economic system is the fantasmatic distribution of enjoyment that underlies it." I feel like someone could theorize an entirely new 'theory of value' off of this insight alone. Incredible point.

[@toddmcgowan8233]

Hi Jordan, Very nicely put. In fact, I just finished a book trying to work out just this idea. So we're thinking along the same lines.

[@WeBreakTheChain]

@@toddmcgowan8233 Thanks Todd. I will check it out!

[@knugenjesus2484]

Absolutely fantastic, thanks again Todd Mcgowan!

[@totonow6955]

Good, aware of my own lack and responsible for my own enjoyment ,Lord. I am going to have to listen to this, take notes and repeat I don't know how many times.

[@biffotube]

I thought this was great. I’ve written a - very simplistic - summary of what I think T McG is saying. Be grateful for any help/ corrections! Especially from Todd himself!!! Ok so capitalism depends on the working of what Adam Smith called the "invisible hand." I'm sure you know about all that but if you don't... The basic idea is that no one human authority figure - king, queen, president, prime minister - is actually in charge of society. That's because what really decides everything is not human & doesn't, actually exist: the forces of the market, working invisibly, sort everything out. Lacan reckons that what we all want is a fullness of being that entirely fills up our basic lack. Libidinally, that takes the form of the mother/ object of desire. The social/ political equivalent of this is The Authority Who Knows Everything. I think he's saying that capitalism works by stimulating that libidinal desire. We think that a phone/babe/TV/yacht will fill the lack. But of course it never does, so everyone in capitalism is dissatisfied all the time. In many people this produces paranoia: I'm aware that I lack what I should have, and this seems like a pattern. (Because it is.) It's almost as if there's some hidden power that's keeping all the Good Stuff for itself, and making sure I don't get any. Who or what is responsible for taking this fullness of being from me? Partly, I think it's the powers that be. But I kindve know that they're not the REAL authority. Which is correct - see above. (Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you etc.) So I feel - again correctly, as above - that the REAL authority is elsewhere. (Because, for Lacan, it's a deep rooted conviction that there must be an absolute authority for everything somewhere, the must be The Answer, there must be someone who has the gift of plenitude, of satiety, of perfect fulfilment.) And - to repeat - it's clear that Macron, or Queen Elizabeth, is not offering that. So what the paranoid citizen in a paranoid-inducing capitalist society is looking for is an authority figure who KNOWS who's stealing, hoarding all the good stuff & denying it to me. But this authority figure has to come from outside the system, because the system is obviously corrupt and unfair - why else does it never give me, or anyone I know, what I want & deserve? Right wing populists now appear: Orban, Trump, Johnson, Modi, Bolsonaro. They are all outsiders, and they KNOW who is to blame. They know who your enemy - the enemy of the people - is. They know where the real Authority is. But they're not Jesus themselves- far from it. And the fact that they're far from holy themselves is the proof of that. They are not that light, but they know where and who the light - or, in this case, the robbers of the light - are. They say stuff like "draining the swamp" or "taking back control" and the paranoid person feels a huge surge of conviction and certainty. They KNEW all along they were right about these secret powers, and here's this guy saying "yes, yes, you absolutely were." (And the paranoid is right. There really is an invisible force denying them and making them unhappy. And it isn't possible to pin this on any one human being, because the force that's making them unhappy is the ahuman forces of the market. And a market which exists to satisfy desires which are by definition unsatisfyable. So capitalism is organised to give your search for meaning and happiness a double whammy. All the time.) The populist right winger/ fascist wages war against the forces that are keeping you from your greatness, but there's a slight catch. The forces can never be defeated. The war can never be won. Because what sustains the Trumps of this world is the existence of a light-and-life denying group that they are fighting.

[@gothicpawg]

Todd being cheeky with the Nike "swoosh" prominently displayed 🙃

[@hateteenagers]

25:32 Another literary example of this is Tennyson's Ulysses, who says "all experience is an arch wherethro' / Gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades / For ever and forever when I move."

[@noorelahi1997]

There's a link between paranoia (as you've described it so clearly in the video) and a subject's inability to see 'form' alongside 'content'. I can't quite phrase it, but I've noticed this feature in many people. A tendency to reduce a 'structural' problem to a simply particular situation. You mentioned this in the video as well, but I'm having trouble understanding, why one would be unable (or unwilling) to bridge that gap between the two.

[@toddmcgowan8233]

I totally agree that paranoia represents a failure to see form as determinative and instead focuses solely on content.

[@noorelahi1997]

@@toddmcgowan8233 But why does this happen? I don't know why I'm finding it so hard to explain the process to myself. Why do some people seem incapable of 'seeing the forest for the trees'?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

@@noorelahi1997 Simply because that's the ruling ideological position. One must be wrenched out of it in some way. If one thinks just naturally, one is stuck in the content, and the form is invisible.

[@gusisagreatname]

@@noorelahi1997 Perhaps it is that zooming out too much and getting a bird's eye view, is like approaching the 'traumatic kernel' a little too closely. There are some things that, if acknowledged, would completely destroy our idea of ourselves, and so when we feel their heat, we also feel that we must back away before getting burned. Perhaps focusing on particularity (content) allows us to evade the confrontation with universality (form) that would entail the collapse of the subject position that has largely defined our lives up until now. At the end of the day, no one wants to have discovered that they've been wrong all along, and it can be far more comforting to double down on our wrongness than to confront the uncertainty of changing course (even if it would ultimately make us feel better).

[@lcrow8675]

great analysis as usual! I'm interested in the way in which dominant aspects of liberal ideology today (which you often discuss on the podcast) such as nominalism and this extreme allergy to the universal, correspond to the rule of this faceless amorphous ruling body of international capital which can't be addressed or identified directly such that it produces paranoiacs.

[@toddmcgowan8233]

Great connection. The point would be that nominalism and liberalism are the necessary ideological expressions of capital. Obviously, one cannot be a dialectical or universalist capitalist. One would simply cease to be a capitalist.

[@jwat9576]

just another TMcG banger

[@maischkrane1759]

Brilliant analysis. Thank you

[@sramirez1906]

Great content.

[@onatone]

I truly appreciate these videos thank you for breaking down a lot of these concepts for free 🙏🙏🙏

[@TheDangerousMaybe]

Hi Todd, two questions. (1) Lately, I seen a lot of Lacanians talking about and developing Jacques-Alain Miller's concept of ordinary psychosis or generalized foreclosure. Does paranoia operate differently in ordinary psychosis than it does in psychosis proper? (2) Do you find the category of ordinary psychosis to be helpful in analyzing politics?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

Yes, paranoia is a different structure than ordinary psychosis, although I think that Miller would say that the prevalence of ordinary psychosis as a form of subjectivity makes the slip into paranoia more common. In this sense, I can see it as a helpful category, but I think it takes the form of appearance for the thing itself, which is why I never employ it in analysis.

[@kiwicfruit]

Hey @TheDangerousMaybe, there's an 2006 anime called Welcome to the NHK which deals about paranoia as well. The failure of hikikomori and their inability to find a job in Japan leads them to believe that there's some big Other behind the scenes who conspires against them. In this way, they can justify their miserable lives through putting the blame on the big Other.

[@TheDangerousMaybe]

@@kiwicfruit That's actually one of my favorite animes of all time. Great show and I think your interpretation of it is spot on.

[@kiwicfruit]

@@TheDangerousMaybe thanks man. wow what a coincidence hahaa. Have you read the novel as well? In the anime, only Jung and Freud were mentioned but in the novel there's Adler and Lacan too.

[@forme1593]

Hi Todd! I’ve seen you speak previously about conversion and relating it to the film Michael Clayton. When I heard that my sense was that your take on a more beneficial conversion is a sort of “turning away from “ but not necessarily a “turning away to”. I guess I’m asking, do you see the preferable move from capitalism as looking at capitalism and saying “Not this” or do you see the more preferable move being “Not this, but, yes to this other thing” ( ie communism)?/why?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

I think that the purely negative response typically ends up being hysterical. So there must be some idea, however vague, of what one wants.

[@forme1593]

Thank you for your response! If I can ask a follow up. I may be out of my depth here but, do you think the same holds true for a general sense/rule of dialectics? Does the negation require some implicit need for (something to turn to/what one wants)?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

@@forme1593 Actually, I think dialectics does not foresee where thinking is heading. The negation is its own solution, typically. This is because the negation is the result of the contradiction in the previous position.

[@edwardbackman744]

I just sent an email to my uni library asking them to get your books!

[@missme3331]

Professor, McG....this is incredibly interesting. Thank you!

[@9999ping]

Interesting joke that I’m surprised hasn’t been mentioned (probably because it’s not that good) but “what does the homeless man own that the rich man can’t afford.. nothing.” This is something that I’ve had in my back pocket but never really understood the gravity of its statement til the introduction of desire. Tbh I still don’t quite understand what it means, much like most my jokes.

[@toddmcgowan8233]

I love that joke and will "borrow" it at some point.

[@jean-patrickpelletier4162]

The nothing ! Good one

[@EMC2Scotia]

I wonder if this may apply in the instances of persons who behave abusively towards their partners, such as in the occurrences of family and domestic violence. If so, how then does the analyst, therapist and so on interrupt or intervene in this commitment to overcoming the non-lacking enjoyment fantasized as occurring for the o/Other?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

I think it does apply, but I cannot say anything about how a therapist might intervene. Sorry.

[@kiwicfruit]

Whenever you say the term enjoyment are you referring to Lacan's Jouissance?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

That's the point of departure, but I'm not sure that Lacan would embrace exactly how I see it (and certainly there are Lacanians who wouldn't). But the short answer is yes.

[@kiwicfruit]

@@toddmcgowan8233 Haven't really thought of this but now that I realise, how do you see yourself Todd? Is it alright to call you a philosopher?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

@@kiwicfruit That's fine, but if I had to say it would be as a theorist

[@The.Iron.Felix.]

Hi Todd! What would you say is the relationship to the other's lack in a communist subject?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

This subject embraces its lack, I would say.

[@The.Iron.Felix.]

@@toddmcgowan8233How does embracing one's lack impact one's outward strivings? Is the embrace of lack still about enjoyment (maybe even a way to preserve it in a different register)? In other words, does embracing the lack, in a means to a means sort of way, take on a different form of jouissance for the communist subject?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

@@The.Iron.Felix. Embrace of one's lack is taking responsibility for one's own enjoyment and recognizing the link between lack and enjoyment. This is what capitalism absolutely prohibits. But the form of enjoyment itself is not different. The point is that one has a different relation to one's enjoyment, which completely changes how one interacts with others. One doesn't envy their enjoyment, for instance.

[@macguffin8540]

This is really great Todd. Many thanks for this.

[@Laocoon283]

Whatever you do pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

[@rama_lama_ding_dong]

is this paranoia sans megalomania? cuz when you said paranoia is integral to Cap i think one can make enormous development in at least competition, but also the MINE! MINE! MINE! of private property. Ayn Rand and so on an so forth. just because youre paranoid dont mean theyre not after you

[@cobbler40]

Fascism is corporate government with loyalty a key part

[@robertleonard5144]

Best laugh I’ve had all day!

[@friendoftheshow8117]

Holy mackerel!

[@ReubenAStern]

You're starting to sound like an Anarchist towards the end. But I also think people should take responsibility for their own lives. I also think people should help eachother whether they're in need or not, but those in need should take priority.... that... and I learned two good jokes today!

[@JosephSneep]

For some people it may be a falsehood but I am personally well aware that the more you have doesn't equate to how happy you are or will be. I believe the meaning of life is the pursuit of values and personal flourishing. A man is and end in himself and owns himself thereby owning the products of his actions and his agency. If I were a billionaire I would probably try to become a trillionare. It's all about attaining the next level. There isn't any point where it just cuts off and you're satisfied.

[@JosephSneep]

Rather you are satisfied in your pursuit of growth and continual accumulation which if done properly can enhance your character and open up doors for pursuing other values.

[@colinpartch887]

TMaG is a Nadal fan!

[@pharder1234]

i want to see what vighi would say about this analysis 😅

[@maischkrane1759]

I I wonder -f the subject never had any plenitude-then where does he get the idea of this plenitude from ? The ideas of Heaven or Communism for example ? From the memories of unity with the mother of being an embrio when all the needs were satisfied ? When there was no lack possibly .Or from the idea of being nothing at all -rom the ide of death ? Is it than that the death drive is the drive/push towards plenitude ?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

I don't think that there is any prior plenitude except in the imagination, certainly not of any situation involving the mother. It seems to me that it can be precisely from lack that the image of plenitude arises. I don't see why this wouldn't work out, even without a prior model.

[@maischkrane1759]

@@toddmcgowan8233Thank you for your response ,Todd. I still wonder if there is no plenitude known to us in any experience of the phenomenal world whasoever how then does our imagiantion stumble on it ? This idea is pretty religious too - how do we get it because even to imagine the unicorn we have to combine for instance a rhino and a horse both known to us. But when the idea is completely alien to us..then ?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

@@maischkrane1759 I thought that you might make a unicorn point. But I think we can put together our various experiences of partial plenitude in the same way that we put together a horse and a horn. I would also say that our phenomenal experience leads us to misrecognize a plenitude based in lack as a pure excess because we cannot incorporate the point from which we experience into the experience. Thus, the misleading idea can have a misleading origin.

[@maischkrane1759]

@@toddmcgowan8233 Could it be then that our idea of plenitude is derived not from the imaginary but from the symbolic register ( in Lacanian terms)?Because is not it that imaginary thinking is based on the visual imagery ? But it is different when we put together several abstract concepts for example- let's say we agree to have a certain set as a whole total set and when it reaches a certain number we declare it such - so from a case of symbolic totality which is relative to an agreement we extrapolate a total totality like Heaven for instance . My understanding of what is symbolic is what is agreed upon ( let say we agree to have certain numbers on a certain papers as money ) or rules of language, laws , instructions etc . To your certain point I am not sure I follow completely . "Is plenitude based on lack as pure excess" something like - for instance I am lacking courage to face a certain Jouisance ( which is always an excess )?

[@maischkrane1759]

Sorry ,I mean to say - "to your second point "

[@Laocoon283]

27:00 Why do you associate this phenomenon with capitalism and not just simply human nature. I think no matter what time or place or circumstance man finds himself in the desire for more will always be present. "Man gets used to everything, the scoundrel." - Dostoevsky

[@toddmcgowan8233]

Sorry, but that Dostoevsky line has nothing to do with the desire for more. It's about generalized conformity, which I think he's right about. But as for the quest for more, it's not even close to being universal. Does Plato ever even struggle with it as a problem? Not at all. Of course, every society had a few exceptional figures who were hoarders or misers, but avarice was in no way a generalized condition.

[@Laocoon283]

@@toddmcgowan8233 Pretty sure Plato had slaves. If that's not the ultimate expression of greed idk what is and I'm pretty sure that Dostoevsky quote is in fact a comment on the hedonic treadmill. It's the driving force for human suffering for him as man can never be satisfied.

[@Laocoon283]

@@toddmcgowan8233 Nevermind I think your right about the Dostoevsky quote. I think I have been misinterpreting it for years now. It's about man's complacency in deplorable conditions. Thanks I guess lol.

[@sydneysymposia]

Of course, the actors within capitalism are, as Marx said, the personifications of capital, and the domination of the working class happens 'automatically' by virtue of its innate structural logic. But this position becomes impotent when it's a question of taking concrete political steps toward emancipation. There are owners of capital; there are wealthy men who have monopolized great swathes of the earth's natural resources, real people who hold the reigns of power and block substantial democratic change from success; there are real individuals who head the military and the police, who lie on the news and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on propaganda. All of these people have names and addresses; they have bank accounts and positions within concrete human institutions. Suggesting that we can simply emancipate ourselves by overthrowing a "logic" without directly agitating against the oppressor strikes me as a metaphysical retreat made by self-professed rebels who, were they more sincere about their revolutionary aspirations, would be ashamed of the very sounds of the words they use. Playing this game without the stakes of life and death is feeble if not merely for show. We should be escalating the threat and mobilizing forms of resistance that have as a part of their goal the intimidation of the bourgeoisie. The owners of capital and their lackeys in power should feel the fear that inherently belongs to holding power. There is no rationality under capitalism that is not pathologically affected; there is no "meta-paranoia." If the rotten fruit of capitalism necessarily is fascism, then it remains our duty to fell the tree.

[@JosephSneep]

Capitalism just refers to the political structure that allows ownership of private property. It doesn't even necessarily consumerism or hyper-consumerism, though it is obviously permissible and encouraged. The way I see it the state government and the economy should be completely separate and the economy should be entirely deregulated and we will see cooler advancements faster than ever before. Continuing to make life more comfortable and awesome. Even the people 'oppressed'' by Capitalism the most still reap many benefits from it.

[@jankan4027]

Are you saying that there is no conspiracy :O ? Who funds the propaganda?

[@BardSonic]

The paranoiac is wearing a pink Nike swoosh hat and attributing to Capitalism all the features of a pagan deity.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

Fa scis m literally op posed cap it alis m and it has not been a thing since the ww2. Should go read some history.

[@gonx9906]

you have been living under a rock the past few years then.