Michael Flower was kind enough to make me graphs to depict the universe of capitalism that I’ve been developing. I’m still playing around with names for the additional three discourses I derive from Lacan’s discourse of the capitalist. By a “universe of discourse” I mean the form that the social link or structure takes in a given society. These universes can be thought as somewhat akin to a Foucaultian episteme, though more formal and abstract. Foucault’s epistemes define what is visible, thinkable, and sayable within a given historical epoch. These universes, by contrast, define the structuration of social relations and the deadlocks that attend these social relations.
July 29, 2016
Larval Subjects . 
July 29, 2016 at 7:13 pm
Are we in Saussurian flux on Foucauldian/Foucaultian?
August 10, 2016 at 6:27 am
One crucial question: isn’t the direction of the arrows different in the discourse of the capitalist, as Lacan has presented it? Why you choose to keep the same form as in the discourse of the Master?
August 25, 2016 at 4:01 am
Citing your own or another’s “meaning” for the S and the a might make this clearer? Thank you for your larvae
August 30, 2016 at 3:12 pm
It would be great if you could expand this post by offering your interpretation of these mayhems.
December 13, 2016 at 5:39 pm
This may be of interest to you:
https://www.academia.edu/11866882/Lacan_and_Debt_The_Discourse_of_the_Capitalist_in_Times_of_Austerity
February 26, 2017 at 3:24 pm
By keeping the structure of the discourse of the master, you have been accused of a partial reading that is lacking. Why do you not change it?
March 4, 2017 at 11:09 pm
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, nor who’s criticism you’re referring to.
March 5, 2017 at 1:11 am
Stijn Vanheule writes the following:
“Not all authors who discuss Lacan’s fifth discourse take into account these three mutations. For example, Bryant (2008) only takes into account Lacan’s suggestion that in capitalist discourse $ and S1 exchange places, but not the two other mutations he points to. Such a partial reading has important weaknesses. For example, the decline of the social bond and the changing position of truth, which are proper to the regime of capitalism (see e.g., Miller, 1993; Žižek, 1999) remain underexposed.”
And is your email still active? I wrote an email to you about this back in January.
March 14, 2017 at 11:21 am
My comments are still awaiting moderation
March 17, 2017 at 4:33 pm
Sivert, Despite the belligerent rudeness of your remarks here, I’ll respond. I have not changed it because I’ve modified Lacan’s discourse of the capitalist. Lacan says very little about his modified diagram, so it’s not clear what to make of it. For this reason I’ve seen it as most reasonable to interpret the discourse in line with his previous discourses.
March 18, 2017 at 10:23 am
Thanks for the answer (although I feel it is kind of a cop-out). I am not a native English speaker so I might not get all the “social cues” or w/e, but I am truly sorry of I come of as rude. Would you please tell me what I said that you consider belligerent rudeness. Thanks again for the answer.
March 18, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Why is it a cop-out. That’s a good observation about language differences. As for the Lacan, I’ve made the best sense of his discourse of the capitalist given the little he said about it. I wasn’t aware Van Haute had written anything in response to me and look forward to reading it if or when I return to the subject.