Decaffeinated Activism

Zizek describes the contemporary distance in engagement as “chocolate laxative” political activity (and not just political activity but all forms of modern life seem to fall under this rubric). Chocolate Laxative because the logic contained in this idea is that of getting the desired results without having to suffer through the unpleasantness en route to them. Other manifestations include:

Robespierre’s jab that the moderates wanted a revolution without a revolution

Starbucks’ and Tom’s Shoes’ P.R. campaigns which suggest you can serve social justice by being more of a consumer (ethos water at SB and the shoes to South America at TS, thus the more you buy the better you are as a kind of Jujutsu of the old consumer whore guilt)

The entire green movement which operates on the absurd notion that a change in the mode of consumption can avert the catastrophe promised by the system

The atrocious book by Julia Moulden, “We are the New Radicals”, and its opening thesis which states positively the dynamic Zizek is using to criticize this vapid mentality: “How we earn our living can actually become the way we give back.”

We agree with Zizek’s critique and recommend it. However, an addition needs to be made. Thus we formulate the following addition;

Zizek has made brilliant use of the “decaffeinated” logic of postmodernism in his criticisms of the two-birds-with-one-stone attempts by the new soft left to establish some kind of simultaneous activism. He shows clearly how it works in consumerism where the new ploys by Starbucks, Tom’s Shoes, and many more have created a situation in which the very act of buying simultaneously functions as a kind of social activism. Julia Moulden’s book “We are the New Radicals” is a great case in point. The book is essentially a manifesto of a decaffeinated social conscience. (Decaffeinated, like chocolate laxative, refers to the domesticated attitude toward things that allows commodities to retain their enjoyable qualities but divests them of their harmful elements) The book advises making a career out of youthful discontent; in other words it is a guide book on how to make your social concern market compatible. But this is nothing new. This is simply the extension of the logic of the entrepreneur into the realm of the consumer and activist (note the priority: activists and consumers are being entrepreneur-ized, not the reverse). Take, for instance, an entrepreneur’s attitude toward the notion of citizenship – especially in the case of taxation: while other citizens might justify the annoyance of taxation to themselves by acknowledging the incurred expenses of living in civil society (e.g. roads, infrastructure, administrative staffing, legal systems and so on) and thereby accept the downside of citizenship (taxes) with the upside (civility) – the entrepreneur does no such thing. The entrepreneur, rather, believes that his/her very actions (making money, employing workers, guiding production) – actions which require the trappings of civil society, mind you, to protect his/her property rights and to enforce contractual obligations – are (the actions themselves are) in themselves payment enough for membership in society. After all, they create jobs so why should they pay taxes? They believe full well that in creating jobs and commodities they have already paid their dues! So they assume a position beyond social contradiction – in one and the same act they have both consumed the amenities of civil society (peace of mind in the protection of their property rights and so on) and paid for it by creating jobs.