Zizek's Digging for New Order, Malabou on the Bounds of History

We don't often separate the mechanisms of our political system with our economic system. They prop up each other up, Capitalism doesn't need democracy for itself to function, so what is the new global order?

The natural environment is our commons, belonging to all of us, but decided by no one person; it is "the ground of our being".

How will intellectual property be used in this management of the commons?

Zizek struggles with the concept of freedom. He proposes we are now in a social context where we are less and less free, despite the options provided to us to consume. Our economic coordinates are being decided in secret.

Ecological consumption choices are our fundamental duty. These duties, these suggestions are ridiculous, I agree with Zizek. However, does that mean we need to be alienated from them, from choices that suggest we are in control? This is not a way to confront major catastrophes, however, perhaps it is a step to aligning people toward supporting such a solution top-down.

Do we need to a ruling ecological ideology to manage large scale systems. Ecology as religion, Zizek asserts has made each one of us culpable, but we are in no way prepared to react to culpability, especially as consumers.

Now, Malabou.

Uncertainty of ecological catastrophe defines our transition to it. Anthropocene situates us between nature and history, we are the subject of the history, conscious of our destruction, but the anthropocene is as "stonelike" as geological reality itself, so Malabou combines this consciousness of the paradox as the definition of this error of logical, irreflexivity.

Who is the man of the anthropocene? There is a "rupture in reflexivity" here that Malabou considers to be central to our experience in corraling our experience in a changing system.