Marxism, Capitalism, and Happiness

Part I – Political Debate in the Age of The Absolute Censor


You may have heard that two contemporary of the left and right were brought together in Toronto on April 19 at the Sony Centre under the title . A much anticipated political debate was to decide on whether or was better suited for the production of . With reportedly some tickets going for as much as $1,500, three thousand fans were set to watch two theory spouting men pit Marxism agains Capitalism. But when all was said and done, not only did they find themselves agreeing on more than they could find to disagree upon, but it seemed in many cases they were not even addressing the same subject matter. What happened?

In watching this debate on Youtube, I asked myself whether this could be a case of ? As the old children’s nursery rhyme goes:

Had the monstrous crow of publicity and the democratization of information destroyed the coherence of the old public space of critique and confrontation? Had it done so with an efficacy that a totalitarian government could have never imagined?

In order to respond to this question, I decided to write a rough draft article that I would first publish on I also wanted to write it to send as a letter to Twiddledum since we had worked in Paris at the same university in the 80’s and 90’s. I will publish the response here should I receive one.

Before I get down to examining point by point what was said during the debate, I imagined the following exchange as a preface:





Is this a new happy form of censorship? If so, does the new censor become laughable precisely at those moments someone might have, at least in a more naive age, felt like crying? Does set the conditions for a mediatic debate between and today –and not the other way around? If, as Marx often proposed, history repeats itself, , was this debate simply a happy departure from the past?

I want to address here not simply what should have been said in defense of Marxism by Twiddledum (perhaps because of his declining health) or Capitalism by Twiddledee, but the failure that this debate points to in isolating a more complex and dire problem.

The New Absolute Censor of Happiness and Fake-News

The problem stems not from the old notion of censoring speech, at least in North America and Europe, but in allowing anything to be said in any manner. Unlike the old relative and negative censor of totalitarian governments where there was always too much meaning, with the new Absolute and positive censor there is the absence of meaning. Instead, the message transmits in a publicity of stars, happiness, nonsense, and fake news that ultimately ends in either acts of aggression or silent resignation.

The recent debate in Toronto on wasjust one example:two mediatic stars, from the left and the right, not only could not find anything to disagree upon, but they joked their way through some very serious subjects using one absurdity after another. Though it may be considered as a progress that the debate did not fall into the cycle of aggression and persecution that many political debates encounter today, one may well have wondered what was the point from the beginning.

Here, then, the next part of this article aims to examine the arguments of both Tweedledee and Twiddledum during the Toronto debate, to not only bring out the absurdities that were being ‘debated’, but to situate the modern day function of the Absolute Censor.

Part II — The Return of Marx: Hallucinations ?



Researcher in le temps perdu: sex, race, ethics, the clinic, logic, and mathematics. Founder and analyst at PLACE

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store

Researcher in le temps perdu: sex, race, ethics, the clinic, logic, and mathematics. Founder and analyst at PLACE