Whitman College Tournament 2009

1 File Title

2AC AT: Cap

Zizek recants doing nothing allows for capitalists to fill in with acts of mass violence Steele and Dean 2010 (John and Jodi, Zizek, materialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat,
Khukuri: Toward Radical Reconception of Revolutionary Theory, http://www.khukuritheory.net/zizek-and-whatmaterialism-is/) How then, does such a fight take place? Not, iek, argues through resistance. In this context, he argues against Simon Critchleys endorsement of local actions at a distance from the state, an argument that continues across The Truth of iek, to which Critchley contributes a forward and iek a reply, and into In Defense of Lost Causes. In The Parallax View, iek argues that its better to do nothing at all than to undertake the little acts of participation that help smooth the running of things (as well as make one feel truly engaged). Little acts of resistance simply feed the machine of power. iek proposes Bartleby politics as an alternative to all this pseudo-activity. Bartleby politics entails a withdrawing from activity and a refusal to participate that open up the place for an act that will actually change the given constellation (in this way Bartleby politics is like infinite resignation or Versagung). For example, a withdrawal of participation can deprive power of its authorizing support, making it appear in all its violence and stupidityone might think here of a teenagers blank stare upon receiving an instruction or of a department chairs frustration when faculty fail to answer email or show up for meetings. The subtraction involved in Bartlebys I would prefer not to, then, is a kind of pure violence, the violence of the object that annoys, disturbs, and traumatizes the subject by its inert, insistent, presence. Its a withdrawal that produces an empty space.

Such a politics of withdrawal, of doing nothing at all, could have disruptive effects (what if the president gave a press conference and nobody came?). But it could also make things easier for the bad guys, those, for example, dismantling public services, failing to oversee and regulate industry and agriculture, intent on bombing half the world into the Stone Age, etc. Accordingly, in subsequent work, iek supplements Bartleby politics with its other side, the side involved in constructing a new order.

Perm: Do Both. Perm: Do the [plan/aff] and the alt in all other instances. Perm: [insert specific perm text] The alternative doesnt solve the case:
Zizeks alternative of do nothing allows for imperialism and offers no hope of a radical Marxist alternative Hardy 2010 (Simon, Slavoj iek, an idealist Trojan horse, League for the Fifth international,
http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/slavoj-zizek-idealist-trojan-horse.) One of iek's better arguments concerns the current dominant discourse in international relations concerning humanitarian intervention. He rightly attacks this as a post political excuse for imperialism. He positions the argument over humanitarianism as being one of urgency, that is, the demand that we have to act, and act quickly to prevent genocide, human rights violations etc. This closes down the space for debate and discussion, allowing the status quo (imperialism) to set the agenda and neutralise opposition. Whilst all this is true, his solution

exposes the radical weakness of his entire project, from an emancipatory point of

Whitman College Tournament 2009

2 File Title

view. Maybe it is designed in typical iekian way to shock, but what he proposes is precisely to do nothing. This allows time to think, to consider reflectively alternative courses of action. iek himself cannot propose anything, since he has not genuine concept of the revolutionary working class of a genuine political subjectivity to counter act imperialism. As socialists we oppose imperialist intervention, and call for the arming of those affected by potential genocide (Darfur for instance) to defend themselves.
iek in another work argues that I am therefore tempted to reverse Marx's theses 11: the first task today is precisely not to succumb to the temptation to act... but to question the hegemonic ideological co-ordinates." But

for those of us who have already questioned the hegemonic ideological coordinates and already, developed a strategy for action, should we wait? A notion of revolutionary 'Act'ion, but with no proletariat to speak of leads one down the road of revolutionary terrorism, or as iek himself once called for Linksfaschismus

(Left fascism) (if this radical choice is decried by bleeding heart liberals then so be it!), that is the violence inflicted on society by another, some kind of authoritarian who dared to Act. This follows from Sharpe's criticism of iek, that, following in the footsteps of Marcuse, iek connects the current depoliticisation (post

politics) with a structurally overpowering ideology which can lead either towards cynicism or voluntarist ultra leftism.
A good example comes from Revolution at the Gates, his edited book of Lenins writings of 1917 iek, argues that a truly shocking act on a demonstration when faced with the police is for the individuals to start beating each other up. Thanks for the advice comrade! Conclusion Certainly iek is a a very interesting thinker when it comes to cinematic and cultural analysis, and in this terrain he is certainly worth reading and thinking about. Some of the concepts that he employs, for instance in his Perverts Guide to cinema are extraordinarily perceptive, and allow for radical readings of films which provide entirely new insights. However when he steps out of this realm he adds not so much insight, as confusion and offers

a dangerous path for those who wish to follow him uncritically. It is a testimony to the general weakness of Marxist theory today, especially when it comes to philosophy, that someone like iek can be feted as such a great inspiration and a step forward. Instead of a return to the idealistic Hegel as a source for inspiration, socialists need to be focussing on putting the case positively for the actuality of the revolution in the here and now, for the centrality of the working class as the subject-object of revolutionary struggle against all existing social conditions.
Post war Marxism was a bitter retreat from the gains of 1902-1922, away from revolutionary programme and concepts into a swamp of eclecticism, structuralism and eventually nearly fatally wounded by post-modernism. It was both a product of and a contribution towards the general political decline of the left, confusion of the left intelligentsia and subsequently a retreat from strategic questions of revolutionary politics. iek claims to

contribute to a revival of communism and a renewed debate on these issues. Certainly he provokes debate, but he is in fact a Trojan horse, smuggling in idealist and anti revolutionary concepts into the left.

Zizeks alternative of doing nothing fails, only serving to reinscribe an obsessional violence of the imperial sovereign while disabling an interested politics of any form Critchley 2009 (Simon Critchley, Violent Thoughts About Slavoj Zizek, Naked Punch,
http://www.nakedpunch.com/articles/39)

Whitman College Tournament 2009

But, in a final twist,

3 File Title

Zizek counsels us to do nothing in the face of the objective, systemic violence of the world. We should just sit and wait and have the courage to do nothing. The book ends with the words, Sometimes, doing nothing is the most violent thing to do. True
enough, but what can this possibly mean? Let me briefly turn to the governing concept of Zizeks recent work, the parallax, and what is purportedly his magnum opus, The Parallax View.[4] The concept of parallax is a way of giving expression to, at its deepest, the radical non-coincidence of thinking and being. Such is Zizeks metaphysics. If Parmenides and the entire ontotheological tradition that follows him, famously recovered by Heidegger, claims that it is the same thing to think and to be, then Zizek disagrees. Between thinking and being, between, in his parlance, the ticklish subject and the tickling object, there exists a radical non-coincidence, a constitutive lack of identity. Such is, of course, nothing more than the teaching of Lacan and the parallax view is the expression of the pas-tout, the not-all that circles around the traumatic kernal of the Real. In the conclusion to The Parallax View (pp.375-85), although it is suggested throughout the book, Zizek claims that the parallax view opens onto a politics, what he calls - echoing Badiou - a subtractive politics, expressed in the figure of Melvilles Bartleby, who reappears as the hero in the closing pages of Violence.(pp.180-83) What

interests Zizek in Bartleby is his insistent I would prefer not to, where Zizek places the emphasis on the not to or the not to do, on Bartlebys impassive, inert and insistent being, which hovers uncertainly somewhere between passivity and the vague threat of violence. So, at the level of politics, it is ultimately the politics of Bartlebys smile, of his not that Zizek wants to oppose to other forms of thinking about politics.
Which other forms? Well, mine for example, but well come back to that.

At the core of Zizeks relentless, indeed manic, production of books, articles and lectures is a fantasy, I think, what my psychoanalyst friends would call an obsessional fantasy, a very pure version of the obsessional fantasy. On the one hand, the only authentic stance to take in dark times is to do nothing, to refuse all commitment, to be paralyzed like Bartleby. On the other hand, Zizek dreams of a divine violence, a cataclysmic, purifying violence of the sovereign ethical deed, something like Sophocles Antigone. But Shakespearean tragedy is a more illuminating guide here than its ancient Greek predecessor. For Zizek is, I think, a Slovenian Hamlet, utterly paralyzed but dreaming of an avenging violent act for which, finally, he lacks the courage. In short, behind its shimmering dialectical inversions, Zizeks work leaves us in a fearful and fateful deadlock, both a transcendentalphilosophical deadlock and a practical-political deadlock: the only thing to do is to do nothing. We should just sit and wait. Dont act, never commit, and continue to dream of an absolute, cataclysmic revolutionary act of violence. Thus speaks the great obsessional. As Hamlet says, Readiness is all. But the truth is that Zizek is never ready. His work lingers in endless postponement and over-production. He ridicules others attempts at thinking about commitment, resistance and action - people like me and many others - while doing nothing himself. What sustains his work is a dream of divine violence, cruelty and force. I hope that one day his dreams come true

The 1AC outweighs/solves the Ks impacts: [[insert either: no link/link turn, or no impact/impact turn block here]]