"how we are to continue to resist."

Everyone should pick up Jacques Ranciere's The Politics of Aesthetics.

(from Zizek's afterword):

"...archi-politics: the 'communitarian' attempts to define a traditional close, organically structured homogenous social space which allows for no void in which the political moment-event can emerge. Para-politics: the attempt to depoliticize politics (to translate it into the police-logic): one accepts the political conflict but reformulates it into a competition, within the representational space, between acknowledged parties/agents for the (temporary) occupation of the place of executive power. Habermasian or Rawlsian ethics are perhaps the last philosophical vestiges of this attitude: the attempts to de-antagonize politics by way of formulating the clear rules to be obeyed so that the agonic procedure of litigation does not explode into politics proper."

(relevant): 

 

Ranciere attempts to "gentrify" the "properly traumatic" aspects of a politicized existence.in his explications of "archi-"/"para-"/"meta-"/"ultra-politics." Zizek also establishes this typology of political philosophy as being in reference to the differing modalities of defense (against trauma) within psychoanalysis. (He mentions Lacan, but personally it makes me think of Freud's Nachträglichkeit.)

However, Lacan functions well in Zizek's extrapolation of Ranciere's 'post-politics'*: there exists a gap between "the Real" and "the Symbolic"--and this gap both characterizes and sustains the concept of "democratic space":
"In a democracy, the place of Power is structurally empty, nobody has the 'natural' right to occupy it, those who exert power can do so only temporarily and should not ever coalesce with its place."


*in which global competitions for power and ensuing ideological conflicts, enacted by distinct political parties, becomes supplanted by a "a collaboration of enlightened technocrats (economists, public opinion specialists...) and liberal multiculturalists." Their interests are negotiated, and "compromise" is achieved via "consensus."
(Sarcastic usage of "consensus," obviously: using the aforementioned logic of para-politics, the technocrats/economists who have assumed executive power wield a type of coercive paternalism in their formulation of "the clear rules to be obeyed." There is no common ground for even symbolic conflict.)