« k-punk: A seamless tissue of fantasies | Main | Response to K-punk: we are figures in our fantasies »

October 18, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Amish Lovelock

Did he borrow this from Karatani, or was it always there before? Being in Tokyo, I'd be interested to hear what anyone thinks of the Karatani stuff.

See more here:


and here:




If you have a chance pick up a copy of November's Atlantic Monthly. They have a feature on college admissions with an article by Richard Hersh...


Amish--yes, he borrows from KK; like I said, the review and the sections of the book are the same. In fact, in the preface to the book, in the sentence about all of his work, he has a footnote to KK that cites Transcritique. There are a couple of details in the reading of Marx and Kant that Zizek rejects; but, for the most part he thinks the book is a great achievement.


Jodi, thanks for linking to this: I definitely have to read Karatani, what he is doing is closely related to stuff I have been struggling to work out.

A paragraph or two of the review, by the way, also appears in Zizek's introduction to Jacques Ranciere's The Politics of Aesthetics. But Zizek recycling texts is no surprise.

I wonder why Zizek didn't seize the opportunity to mention the film The Parallax View -- to my mind the very best of the paranoid political thrillers of the 1970s.


Steven--now I see what I should watch this weekend! I know I saw it ages ago, but don't recall. Weird that Z doesn't mention it--didn't Jameson write about it? I'm interested in seeing how you use the K book; I know I should read it, but right now I think I'm just going to get this stupid Z book finished.

I wish you had trackback/comments on your A history of violence post!


I had to turn the comments off on my blog, I was getting too much spam.

I got the Karatani book today and read the Intro -- but it'll be a while before I have the time to read more.

Anyway, what interests me in Karatani is 1) his emphasis on circulation (which is necessary in order to realize the surplus value extracted in production) and 2) his use of the Kantian antinomy (Kant's dialectic *as opposed to* Hegel's; which is precisely where I have issues with Zizek): both of these are things I have been trying to work out, because they are both crucial to the argument of my book in progress...

Amish Lovelock


Thanks for your take. The thing which has confused me about Karatani is the following. He claims the triad of capital-nation-state forms a nexus of transcendental illusions in the strictest Kantian sense. Therefore just getting rid of one will not ensure the end of capitalism. That if you do away with the market, the state will merely take over. He uses this to understand Fascism, Stalinism and neo-liberalism to an extent, as they merely tried to do away with one aspect of the nexus and the others just simply kicked in. There is a kind of circulation both within each node and between the nexus as a whole.

This is pretty simplified but I still don't know what to make of it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo