“I’m not responsible, I merely fulfill the Other’s Will” -…this is what Kantian ethics prohibits.

http://twitter.com/extimacy/status/921649788847878144 http://ift.tt/2yezd91

For Kant our capacity to desire is…“pathological”,…Lacan claims…desire does have a non-pathological, a priori object-cause:…objet a.

http://twitter.com/extimacy/status/921286154728693761 http://ift.tt/2hMlTCu

renouncing the guarantee of some big Other is the very condition of a truly autonomous ethics.

http://twitter.com/extimacy/status/920925018716033024 http://ift.tt/2hJLFHH

In alienation, the subject experiences the Other as the full agent running the show, as the one who “has it” (what the subject is lacking)

http://twitter.com/extimacy/status/920557588013568000 http://ift.tt/2hFmEgY

when the Master loses his authority and becomes hystericised (after his authority is questioned, experienced as fake), … authority reappears but is now displaced, de-subjectivised, in the guise of the authority of neutral expert-knowledge (‘it’s not me who exerts power, I just state objective facts and/or knowledge’). … ‘The animal wrests the whip from its master and whips itself in order to become master, not knowing that it is only a fantasy produced by a new knot in the master’s whiplash.’ Is this remark by Kafka not the most succinct definition of what went wrong in the communist states of the twentieth century?

http://ift.tt/2h9oWHU

Putin’s foreign policy is a clear continuation of this tsarist-Stalinist line. According to him, after the Revolution, it was the turn of the Bolsheviks to aggrieve Russia: ‘The Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic makeup of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine.’10 In January 2016, Putin again made the same point in his characterisation of Lenin’s greatest mistake: Ruling with your ideas as a guide is correct, but that is only the case when that idea leads to the right results, not like it did with Vladimir Ilyich. In the end that idea led to the ruin of the Soviet Union. There were many of these ideas such as providing regions with autonomy, and so on. They planted an atomic bomb under the building that is called Russia and which would later explode.11 In short, Lenin was guilty of taking seriously the autonomy of the different nations that composed the Russian empire, and thus of questioning Russian hegemony. No wonder we see portraits of Stalin again during Russian military parades and public celebrations, while Lenin is obliterated. In a big opinion poll conducted a couple of years ago, Stalin was voted the third-greatest Russian of all time, while Lenin was nowhere to be seen. Stalin is not celebrated today as a communist, but as the restorer of Russia’s greatness after Lenin’s anti-patriotic ‘deviation’. For Lenin, ‘proletarian internationalism’ goes hand in hand with a defence of the rights of small nations against the big nations: for a ‘great’ nation dominating others, giving full rights to smaller nations is the key indicator of the seriousness of their professed internationalism.

http://ift.tt/2zrOk3r

What broke down was their ‘objective’ illusion: the figure of the ‘big Other’ that had provided the background against which they were able to pursue their ruthless drive for power.

http://ift.tt/2zbJ2Iq