I was reading this post from Steve Shaviro on political economy. I agree with his basic point regarding we need more of it. And, as I was reading, I started to wonder whether I agree with Zizek's point that there is no relation between politics and economy, that the two are characterized by a parallax gap.
First, it's clear that the division of labor is a political division. It relies on force. Isn't this a relation between economy and politics?
Second, what about current electoral politics? Not just in the US, but in much of Latin America and the UK, the economy is a political issue. Folks vote for approaches to the economy. There's not much of a choice, admittedly, but there is not a separation between the economy and politics either.
The problem, though, is that I may be subordinating the economy to politics in these examples. But, must that be the case? Why not simply say that there is a relation between the two, a relation that changes, a relation of mutual imbrication and determination, a relation that is necessary and must be theorized? I think this is Steve's point. And, he thinks we can go far toward theorizing this relation by drawing from Deleuze and Guattari. I think Zizek is still helpful here.
But now I might have to do some revising of Zizek Politics if it goes into a second printing...