Reply to ‘Lenin’s Ghost’

Thanks for getting in touch , it is always great to hear from fellow bloggers/scholars. I am currently half-way through my PhD. Programme, having finished my MA Thesis in 2006. In regards to the environment, I would agree that it is one of the most pressing issues for humanity and the intellectual community at large. The problem, I believe is that the issues have been hegemonised by the natural sciences, which holds that the problems, or at least solutions, are technological rather than aspects of human behaviour. The failure of theorists of human behaviour to critically consider environmental signals a much larger issue in regards to the status of environmental problems within capitalism.

Some years ago I had some hope that the discursive dislocations caused by environmental awareness would not only be wholly taken on by western society, but would also consequentially change the very contours of capitalist political economy. Now, however, embolden by the breakdown of my naivety, I have a firm belief that radical global environmental degradation will continue unabated under global capitalism, whatever form the latter takes. I hold this view for these reasons;

- The power of the empty signifier ‘sustainable development’ to take on the demands of the various threats to the system. Such is the flexibility and power of this signifier that it can be taken on to mean anything from energy efficiency, community economic programmes to sustainability increasing profits
- The ability of the capitalist system to turn threats into opportunities for further profit; witness the burgeoning ‘Green market’
- Ultimately there are two complementary demands behind these processes. The first is capitalism’s structural requirement to increase rates of profit. At the most essential level this can only mean increases in the levels of production and resource consumption. Equally, the primary structuration of the capitalist subject is one of commodity fetishism, or at least enjoyment of the consumption of commodities (whether this is a fetish is open for debate). These two complementary structures within the capitalist system forbid the thinking of environmentalism outside of the demands of capitalist political economy. By far the most obvious solution to environment problems is the reduction is levels of consumption. This, however, is an idea which is simply unable to be thought through fully. At some level Green political movements and the alike argue for a reduction in levels of consumption, but the consequences of this demand are not taken to the end. Under capitalism, a reduction in consumption levels can only result in recession, with the fall out disproportionally affecting the poor at both a local and global level.
- This brings me to my final reason: Capitalism thrives both by producing new commodities, but also by bringing them into new markets. That capitalism is thriving in the ‘developing world’, in particular India and China is a triumph in terms of bringing large sections of the population out of poverty, but in the long term can only be a tragedy; if the world is currently struggling to hold onto the resource demands of the western world, it cannot possibly support the same levels of consumption for India and China, nor can it allow for others to come out of poverty.

Thus, the capitalist system actually requires the presence of poverty at two levels; a reserve army of labour which maintains the integrity of the capitalist wage system (which I will not enter into here) and in terms of global resource consumption. In the medium to long term, if capitalism continues I can only forecast ongoing and increasingly desperate resource-based conflict, beyond that of currently seen for Oil, at both a base and ideological level.


Given these conclusions, then, it is little wonder that environmentalism cannot be thought outside of capitalist terms, given the radical consequences of this thought. Consequently, one cannot be surprised by the grip that market solutions have on both politicians and the population at large. They are, quite literally the only solution available under capitalism. And, to be fair, there is good to be seen in these solutions; both strictly market solutions like carbon trading or intra-capitalist technological developments such as energy efficient light-bulbs. At a certain level, they do bring about environmental improvements. The other side of the equation, the under-side which is of primary interest to those involved with psychoanalysis, is that these devices not only serve only to reinforce the capitalist logic of consumption, but their primary (if unconscious) purpose is to mediate against the dislocation of capitalist ideology by environmentalism.

That is why I agree with Zizek’s latest work on ecology (and I see this article on your blog). Here Zizek argues that environmentalism has lost all of its subversive sting (if it ever had any) and that it is only the divide between those included and those excluded from the system that can bring at decisive change to capitalism.

This is why, in regards to your enquiry on Zizek’s work on revolution, I have some solidarity with his idea that in these times we actually have no leg to stand on; all political attempts to rearticulate political economy can only end up being capitalist (as we see with most ‘Green’ political parties around the world – their policies may have an anti-capitalist edge, but they are quite happy to participate in capitalist democracy) or being pathetically ineffective, living in the past or not having any grip on political discourse. For this reason, under these conditions, Zizek argues that the thing to do is actually nothing – to resist the terms of the debate and to continually reveal the limits of the ideological matrix under which those terms are set. In these times, I see more value in this position than ‘revolution’, which operates as yet another fantasy position; all action is useless until the revolution. Holding to the goal of revolution, then, both prevents practical action whilst subduing the effects of the real within the current order.

Doing ‘nothing’ is a difficult position to hold. Not only does it appear to not offer any prospect of political change (and there is always some truth in appearance), but this strategy also does not allow any the holder any defence against the symptoms of the hegemonic horizon. And this is the great strength of the position – it forces us to both think outside of the square and take responsibility for those actions, there is by definition no support within the current order.

In this way it has some similarities to the Lacanian/Zizekian Act, which as you may be aware, is perhaps the most controversial part of Zizek’s work. I certainly agree with your concerns, although I can see the logic in Zizek’s argument. If capitalism has hegemonised hegemony, as he has put it, the only option is an Act(ion) that is outside of those co-ordinates. Certainly Zizek would argue against any notion that the consequences of an Act can be predicted or controlled. If we can name in advance the purpose or consequences of an Act, it is no longer an Act because it has support from the existing symbolic order. Politically and psychologically, the purpose of an Act is a radical break with the existing in which the subject takes total responsibility for the consequences.

I have never been comfortable with Zizek’s confluence of the Act with revolution, or indeed anti-capitalist politics. No doubt he would accuse me of being a liberal who wants ‘revolution without revolution’, but so be it. Nor have I supported the imperative of change for the sake of change, nor the imperative for contingency (as supported by Ernesto Laclau, both collaborator and enemy of Zizek, who has previously argued that the free society is one that is aware of the contingency of its formation) for the sake of contingency.


Where this leaves us in terms of political action, I am not sure, and this is the primary focus of my doctorate. I also find the question difficult in terms of my personal lifestyle. Despite my radical theoretical commitments, I find myself limited to typical moderate-liberal action; recycling, energy efficiency etc. And these things are fine on their own, provided they do not end up in a fantasy position of subduing environmental demand. Additionally, of course, I reduce my consumption as much as possible, although on a student budget this is a practical necessity as much as anything!

Increasingly I have been attracted by the arguments of Yahya Madra and Ceren Ozselcuk, writing out of the Rethinking Marxism journal (see my last couple of posts for a summary of their work) as an example of practical, positive (not positivising) action. Here they argue for the creation of a new space for political economy that does not enter into the logic of capitalism.

Essentially, I do think we have a responsibility to the shape of the future beyond the simple demand for change. If we are faced with a destructive form of political economy, our only alternative is for a form of political economy better suited to the dignity of the human condition. To me, hoping to destroy capitalism without any progressive purpose is hopelessly blind, whatever the theoretical calculations. Our responsibility than, is both to construct a new form and practice of political economy beyond capitalism and the ideological fantasy of communism. What shape this takes, I believe is currently an open question. Perhaps more importantly are the possibilities of breaking free from capitalism. Again, this remains an open question, with notably dimmer prospects.

Ultimately, in regards to environmentalism, I believe that the challenge for the intellectual and political community is twofold. The first step is to realise that this is human problem, caused by human behaviour and it is this behaviour which needs to alter, not to be supplemented by improved natural science. Once environmentalism becomes a problem for the humanities a further step needs to be taken in recognising that for the planet to resume flourishing, we cannot simply change behaviour within the system, but must change the system itself. How that change can come about, and in what form, is the challenge for the humanities.