Well, I was beyond delighted to find this from Sinthome: Larval Subjects: Zizek's Politics!. I was also beyond embarassed to realize it's been up for nearly three weeks. Following a long quote, Sinthome writes:
I have quoted this passage at length as it so nicely encapsulates the organization of late capitalism and the challenges (and theoretical seductions) that attend it. On the one hand, the collapse of symbolic efficiency under late capitalism is accompanied by the collapse of symbolic identities, which entails that identity subsequently unfolds in the unstable domain of the imaginary, with its attendent dualities, paranoia, and aggressions. In this regard, it is not off the mark to suggest that we are living in an age characterized by a generalized psychosis, as psychosis results from the foreclosure of the name-of-the-father and is accompanied by the predominance of imaginary relations. The tendency towards paranoia and comprehending the world in terms of conspiracies could be seen as the return of what is foreclosed in the symbolic returning in the real. Indeed, could not paranoia about terrorists (who are generally conceived in terms of religion), be thought as the return of the foreclosed symbolic dimension of religion? The question, of course, would be whether the symbolic intrinsically requires a religious supplement, or whether we can be done with the religious once and for all. At any rate, it is clear that ethics such as those we find in Deleuze and Guattari where we are enjoined to develop ourselves as anarchic desiring machines and lines of flight are part and parcel of this ideological structure, and thus expressions of the superego of capital.
On the other hand, insofar as the university discourse of capital is organized around treating the addressee as an object (a) rather than a subject, it is clear that the emergence of biopower is tightly tied to the emergence of the capitalism. Nor, then, is it a surprise that biology comes to emerge as a science with the emergence of capital. For not only is the issue one of reducing the other to bare life, but it is also one of developing an ever more sophisticated system of knowledge pertaining to life so as to be able to exert ever more systematic control and exploitation of life. In this connection I recall the horror I once experienced when watching the Discovery Channel show "How Things Work", where they explained the production of chicks. There they showed how thousands of chicks are incubated until such a point where they are ready to hatch. The eggs are then placed on a conveyor belt with rollers and spaces between the rollers, where the chicks break out of their shells and then are thrown down the appropriate shute by women who sort them according to sex. Apart from the disturbing sight of the chicks being thrown down shafts to conveyer belts below, what horrified me was that the rollers were designed as they were so as to capture the broken shells, which were then used to make calcium pills and other products. Nothing was wasted. Even the shells were recouped. The ideal, then, is that of a total enjoyment without remainder, not unlike the enjoyment of the robot-boy in Spielberg's AI, that was so voracious that it was willing to erase all physical trace of his mother from being itself to spend one day with her. It seems to me that this dimension of capital, it's drive to capture all remainders and put them to use in the production of capital, should give one pause and generate caution with regard to complexity theory, autopoietic theory, systems theory, etc. For do not these bodies of theory become new tools for expanding this process of exploitation and capturing/controlling the remainders?