The discussion seems to hinges on what we dub "the proper use of capitalism"; I'm inclined to argue that the "proper" maintenance of hegemony requires the disavowal of certain dimensions of its foundational ideology. As Zizek puts in, in an excerpt I'm particularly fond of:

"Why did the church react in such a violent way to the Gnostic narrative? Not because the Cathars' [gnostics] radical Otherness (the dualist belief in the Devil as the counter-agent to the good God; the condemnation of over procreation and fornication, i.e. the disgust at Life in its cycle of generation; etc.), but because these 'strange' beliefs which seemed so shocking to the Catholic orthodoxy were precisely those that had the appearance of stemming logically from contemporary doctrine. That was why they were considered so dangeous ... In short, what the Cathars offered was the inherent transgression of the official Catholic dogma, its disavowed logical conclusion. And, perhaps, this allows us to propose a more general definition of what heresy is: in order for an ideological edifice to occupy the hegemonic place and legitimize the existing power relations, it has to compromise its founding radical message - and the ultimate 'heretics' are simply those who reject this compromise, sticking to the original message."

Hyperconformity, on this analysis, is the paradigmatic form of heresy - there is great power in taking systemic mandates more seriously than docile members of that system do. This is what the cyborg achieves; this is what Hannibal Lector-style characters achieve; this is (arguably) what the BwO achieves. I guess the bottom line is that "proper capitalism" is predicated on constitutive disavowals, the excavation of which could radically destabilize the entire system. At least that's the hope.