Slavoj Zizek @liberty plaza.

[Susurrus]

http://occupywallst.org/forum/today-liberty-plaza-had-visit-slavoj-zizek/

[DaringMehring]

Not bad.

He obviously didn't go into great sociological detail on either the USSR (what was right or wrong with it) and future society (how should it be constructed), but I think it was an audience and forum appropriate message, and, given what I know of him, a good performance for him.

There was also this guy who was great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziodsFWEb5Y&feature=share

Quotes the Manifesto at the end...

[OHumanista]

For the 1000th time I have seriously regreted reading the comments below the article. I don't there any more effective way to destroy your brain than reading these comments. 99% of them are imbeciles who say atrocious things. Like the so called "socialist" who was defending that capitalism works.

I really have to stop reading the comments:D

[Vanguard1917]

http://occupywallst.org/forum/today-liberty-plaza-had-visit-slavoj-zizek/

What was the purpose of that annoying repetition business? Couldn't they get Zizek some amplification?

[Comrade Dracula]

What was the purpose of that annoying repetition business? Couldn't they get Zizek some amplification?

That's the human mic system, used in absence of a real mic. As far as I know, it is illegal in NYC to use any sort of amplification system at a rally without getting a permit.

[Battlecat]

What was the purpose of that annoying repetition business? Couldn't they get Zizek some amplification?
People's microphone - it's to spread the message to everyone in case they can't hear. I think in there are laws against using amps and microphones and such without a permit (which I doubt they have). So it's a cheep, easy, legal way to spread out the message to those in the back who can't hear it.

[RED DAVE]

People's microphone - it's to spread the message to everyone in case they can't hear. I think in there are laws against using amps and microphones and such without a permit (which I doubt they have). So it's a cheep, easy, legal way to spread out the message to those in the back who can't hear it.Actually, having heard it for the first time last night, it's rather touching and effective.

RED DAVE

[Vanguard1917]

People's microphone - it's to spread the message to everyone in case they can't hear. I think in there are laws against using amps and microphones and such without a permit (which I doubt they have). So it's a cheep, easy, legal way to spread out the message to those in the back who can't hear it.

Thanks for the explanation, but i'd disagree that it's a good alternative to a normal speech. It renders the speech semi-incomprehensible and blunts whatever message or power that it may have. If there are legal restrictions on amplifiers, that's obviously an issue. But i wonder how the mass movements of the 19th century managed, when the technology did not even exist. Most likely not through such a method as in the video.

[Mr. Natural]

I had managed to avoid engaging Slavoj Zizek; I figured he was just one more gabby, semi-interesting detour from revolutionary thought and practice.

I just read the partial transcript of his speech, and my resistance to Zizek has been validated. Did he really proclaim "We are not communists."? Many communists were present at the rally.

Then he made the outrageous statement, "Communism has failed absolutely." This is naked bourgeois sloganeering, and I won't dignify this crap by going into some of the reasons Zizek is so wrong.

So yes, Zizek can be interesting, but he's lost in a no man's land between capitalism and communism. He leads to despair.

[The Douche]

Wasn't Zizek just writing about how we should not abandon "communism", but claim it even more boldly as the only solution for the crisis?

[Crux]

Most likely not through such a method as in the video.
Well, through similar methods at least. I have read accounts where the bolsheviks spoke in front of large crowds using several speakers repeating after each other.

[Zealot]

I had managed to avoid engaging Slavoj Zizek; I figured he was just one more gabby, semi-interesting detour from revolutionary thought and practice.

I just read the partial transcript of his speech, and my resistance to Zizek has been validated. Did he really proclaim "We are not communists."? Many communists were present at the rally.

Then he made the outrageous statement, "Communism has failed absolutely." This is naked bourgeois sloganeering, and I won't dignify this crap by going into some of the reasons Zizek is so wrong.

So yes, Zizek can be interesting, but he's lost in a no man's land between capitalism and communism. He leads to despair.

That's what I was thinking. But after a second read, he is trying to equate phony-communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union to capitalism in a subtle way.

We are not communists. If communism means the system which collapsed in 1990, remember that today those communists are the most efficient ruthless capitalists.

I've been seeing a lot of this in videos from the demonstrations, communists trying to radicalize the people by twisting and turning around words. When (if?) the movement gets big, hopefully the people will be accepting enough by that time that they can just be straight up about demanding communism. I'm kind of undecided on whether I agree with his choice of words for the sake of radicalizing the people or if he should have worded it some other way. I just don't know.

[Vanguard1917]

Well, through similar methods at least. I have read accounts where the bolsheviks spoke in front of large crowds using several speakers repeating after each other.

Interesting. I guess it takes getting used to.

[SHORAS]

http://occupywallst.org/forum/today-liberty-plaza-had-visit-slavoj-zizek/

I'm finding anything that is said and then repeated, shouted is unbearable to listen to at these things. They would have all heard what he was saying anyway. And if not get a fucking mic.

[x359594]

...i wonder how the mass movements of the 19th century managed, when the technology did not even exist. Most likely not through such a method as in the video.

Based on photographs and drawings of mass meetings it appears that some speakers used megaphones (still illegal under the present NYC rules), some cupped hands, some sheer lung power with those standing near the front repeating the speaker's words to those farther away, in other words, the people's mic.

[x359594]

...And if not get a fucking mic.

...and give the cops an excuse to go in and start a riot.

[SHORAS]

That's the human mic system, used in absence of a real mic. As far as I know, it is illegal in NYC to use any sort of amplification system at a rally without getting a permit.

If they're not prepared to break silly laws like that in 'free speech' USA then there is no fucking hope whatsoever. At the moment it all far too safe. It reminds me of an 'occupation' I visited in Britain some months ago. In reality it was not an occupation. They 'occupied' essentially a lobby/entrance between a couple of lecture rooms. They did not halt anything in the university or cause anyone any problems. They had a space for discussion and so on but it ended up in writing letters to the administration, some harmless marching and sleep overs in an unused lecture room at night.

[SHORAS]

...and give the cops an excuse to go in and start a riot.

The state does not need an excuse to do anything. They could do that anyway and at anytime. Also, you don't know what the outcome could be. It could bring more people out and advance the general consciousness.

[tir1944]

Let's just hope IRL trolls/police agents provocateaurs don't start trolling up that "live mic" in the manner of "broken telephone"...:laugh:

[x359594]

The state does not need an excuse to do anything...

In this case it does. In fact, in the US the state needs the semblance of legality to justify its repression.

For example, when Oscar Grant was gunned down by an Oakland Transit Authority cop the state had to produce a reason for the use of deadly force. They just couldn't drag the body away, throw some sawdust on the blood and hose it away and then return to business as usual. There were too many witnesses, there were too many video records. And when the news media spread the word there was a dangerous public outcry that had to be mollified.

Whether you believe it or not, there are constraints on what the state can do here in the US.

[SHORAS]

In this case it does. In fact, in the US the state needs the semblance of legality to justify its repression.

For example, when Oscar Grant was gunned down by an Oakland Transit Authority cop the state had to produce a reason for the use of deadly force. They just couldn't drag the body away, throw some sawdust on the blood and hose it away and then return to business as usual. There were too many witnesses, there were too many video records. And when the news media spread the word there was a dangerous public outcry that had to be mollified.

Whether you believe it or not, there are constraints on what the state can do here in the US.

Exactly, they do want they want. Kill, beat up, whatever. They make excuses, cover it up or whatever afterwords. What difference does it make? Yes, they produce a reason but so what. Any reason will do.

[KurtFF8]

If they're not prepared to break silly laws like that in 'free speech' USA then there is no fucking hope whatsoever. At the moment it all far too safe. It reminds me of an 'occupation' I visited in Britain some months ago. In reality it was not an occupation. They 'occupied' essentially a lobby/entrance between a couple of lecture rooms. They did not halt anything in the university or cause anyone any problems. They had a space for discussion and so on but it ended up in writing letters to the administration, some harmless marching and sleep overs in an unused lecture room at night.


Yes if more people get arrested (as in some people have already been arrested at OWS for this) for using amplification we will get closer to revolution somehow!

[Grenzer]

Isn't Zizek a self described Stalinist? I have read some of his works in the past and was pretty impressed, but I didn't know he was a communist until just the other day.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Isn't Zizek a self described Stalinist? I have read some of his works in the past and was pretty impressed, but I didn't know he was a communist until just the other day.

You kind of said it right there! You've read some of his books in the past, but you didn't he was a communist until just the other day.

Zizek seems to "flirt" with Stalinism as well as with a lot of other things.In "In Defense of Lost Causes" he says Stalin saved civilization and then spends many pages discussing Stalin's repressions and political manipulations.

"The First Time As Farce" is good, the rest of his stuff seems like posing.

[Susurrus]

I think Zizek just says somewhat off-the-wall stuff in an attempt to get people to explore their own political beliefs more and to break rigid ideological conformity.

[x359594]

I think Zizek just says somewhat off-the-wall stuff in an attempt to get people to explore their own political beliefs more and to break rigid ideological conformity.

Zizek certainly does that in his public appearances.

Zizek's best book, First As Tragedy Than As Farce, is also one of his shortest and eschews Lacanian terminology for the most part. In it he calls for the resurrection of a new communist movement and gleans lessons from Lenin.

[bricolage]

...and give the cops an excuse to go in and start a riot.
isn't occupying the space illegal in the first place?

[SHORAS]

Yes if more people get arrested (as in some people have already been arrested at OWS for this) for using amplification we will get closer to revolution somehow!

That's a philistine interpretation of what I have said. Grow up.

[x359594]

isn't occupying the space illegal in the first place?

Depends on the city where the occupation is taking place. In NYC it's legal within tightly circumscribed spatial limits. The Mayor made a move to make it illegal when he announced that the occupiers will have to clear out so that the city can "clean" the square.

[#FF0000]

That's a philistine interpretation of what I have said. Grow up.

What you said was dumb either way. Get over it.

[SHORAS]

What you said was dumb either way. Get over it.

Can you please explain your first sentance? I don't think I had anything to "get over".