Occupy Wall Street: what is to be done next?

[the zizekian]

Occupy Wall Street: what is to be done next?
How a protest movement without a programme can confront a capitalist system that defies reform

by Slavoj Žižek (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/slavojzizek)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Tuesday 24 April 2012


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/24/occupy-wall-street-what-is-to-be-done-next

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thread moved :)

[Ele'ill]

It's only been a year relax.

[the zizekian]

We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom. -- Zizek

[Ele'ill]

I think what he's suggesting is happening through action in Oakland and elsewhere on the west coast. Perhaps with May about a week away we'll see the East catch up. I am thrilled with all that took place in only a years time.

[the zizekian]

I think that it is the black blocs which have made all the difference and that it is sad to see so few other activists connecting with their “violence”.

[Ele'ill]

I think it's those pushing the militant action dialogue into the mainstream- news and GA's and those willing to verbally engage poor ideas/proposals at GA's and one on one and not giving up even though it's really really tiring. This is probably something not often mentioned that's kinda 'duh' but there's a lot of people not gassing out, there's just hella tenacity going on and it's huge. It isn't just the black bloc tactic of course but I believe radicals involved in the occupations, port shut downs, militant marches lacking a black bloc tactic and everything in between those events.

[the zizekian]

I think it's those pushing the militant action dialogue into the mainstream- news and GA's and those willing to verbally engage poor ideas/proposals at GA's and one on one and not giving up even though it's really really tiring.

To me, Occupy Montreal has proven that dialogue and GAs kill activism more efficiently than anything else.

[Ele'ill]

To me, Occupy Montreal has proven that dialogue kills activism more than anything else.


Don't know what you're referring to specifically but I think mainstream talk about tactics as they were unapologetically being wielded is what has liberals here suggesting banks and cop cars get fucked up. It's why confrontation isn't being avoided. It's why we held main street, why we hate the police, why we are willing to march unpermitted largely dialogue surrounding diversity of tactics did this. We acted anyways and did anything we wanted and explained later and people listened.

[the zizekian]

To be specific, I have also never seen a discussion forum (this one included) that was not something else than a collection of sarcasms.

[Ele'ill]

To be specific, I have also never seen a discussion forum (this one included) that was not something else than a collection of sarcasms.

What do you mean?

[the zizekian]

What do you mean?

I think no one will ever find anti-trolling rules allowing dialogue.

[Ele'ill]

I think no one will ever find anti-trolling rules allowing dialogue.

a real life GA isn't comparable to an internet forum

[the zizekian]

a real life GA isn't comparable to an internet forum

Just think about the quorum rules, no one will ever find a rule allowing a GA to even get started.

[Ele'ill]

what?

[the zizekian]

what?

What rule?

[Ele'ill]

What are you talking about?

[the zizekian]

What are you talking about?

the quorum

[ckaihatsu]

We do not vote about who owns what, about relations in a factory, etc – all this is left to processes outside the sphere of the political.


Žižek puts forth a good critique noting the lack of politics in things that really matter in the world, but then he backs away from a realistic demand to 'Seize the Banks!', which would be an appropriate next-step for a movement that called for the occupation of Wall Street.





It is illusory to expect that one can effectively change things by "extending" democracy into this sphere, say, by organizing "democratic" banks under people's control. In such "democratic" procedures (which, of course, can have a positive role to play), no matter how radical our anti-capitalism is, the solution is sought in applying the democratic mechanisms – which, one should never forget, are part of the state apparatuses of the "bourgeois" state that guarantees undisturbed functioning of the capitalist reproduction.


No, we shouldn't expect bourgeois state apparatuses to apply democratic mechanisms over their own banks, but yes, we *should* organize democratic banks that are under people's control -- this would mean that they're no longer under bourgeois control.

[the zizekian]

Žižek puts forth a good critique noting the lack of politics in things that really matter in the world, but then he backs away from a realistic demand to 'Seize the Banks!', which would be an appropriate next-step for a movement that called for the occupation of Wall Street.





No, we shouldn't expect bourgeois state apparatuses to apply democratic mechanisms over their own banks, but yes, we *should* organize democratic banks that are under people's control -- this would mean that they're no longer under bourgeois control.

American banks are owned by China since it is China which is their main creditor. If you want to expropriate China, you need an army, which will never be very democratic.

[ckaihatsu]

American banks are owned by China since it is China which is their main creditor. If you want to expropriate China, you need an army, which will never be very democratic.


According to what you originally posted it's not about one *country* or another, but rather is about the capitalist *system* that defies reform:





Occupy Wall Street: what is to be done next?
How a protest movement without a programme can confront a capitalist system that defies reform

by Slavoj Žižek (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/slavojzizek)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Tuesday 24 April 2012


A mass movement is not a military force contending *for* state power -- it's about *seizing* state power so that it can be dissolved into people's and workers' power.

[the zizekian]

According to what you originally posted it's not about one *country* or another, but rather is about the capitalist *system* that defies reform

China is more than a country, it is an empire precisely because it plays by the capitalist system.

[ckaihatsu]

American banks are owned by China since it is China which is their main creditor. If you want to expropriate China, you need an army, which will never be very democratic.




China is more than a country, it is an empire precisely because it plays by the capitalist system.


So regardless of how China is categorized it still operates within the capitalist system.





According to what you originally posted it's not about one *country* or another, but rather is about the capitalist *system* that defies reform

[the zizekian]

So regardless of how China is categorized it still operates within the capitalist system.

Proposing to democratize banks is equivalent to proposing to democratize something more powerful than a democracy.

[ckaihatsu]

Proposing to democratize banks is equivalent to proposing to democratize something more powerful than a democracy.


You're the only one here talking about democratizing banks:





American banks are owned by China since it is China which is their main creditor. If you want to expropriate China, you need an army, which will never be very democratic.

[the zizekian]

No, we shouldn't expect bourgeois state apparatuses to apply democratic mechanisms over their own banks, but yes, we *should* organize democratic banks that are under people's control -- this would mean that they're no longer under bourgeois control.



Capitalism with a remnant of communism (China) has proven to be more powerful than democracy. Democracy is only an excuse to do nothing, counting on others to decide.

[ckaihatsu]

Capitalism with a remnant of communism (China)


China has never been communist -- it's been anti-imperialist / nationalist at its best.





has proven to be more powerful than democracy.


Yes, I agree that capitalism has proven to be more powerful than (bourgeois) democracy -- that's why it has to go.





Democracy is only an excuse to do nothing, counting on others to decide.


Yes, I also agree that (bourgeois) democracy is too substitutionist. With current technology there are no longer any logistical barriers to full political participation from all people, as over the implements of industrial production.





A mass movement is not a military force contending *for* state power -- it's about *seizing* state power so that it can be dissolved into people's and workers' power.

[the zizekian]

China has never been communist -- it's been anti-imperialist / nationalist at its best.





Yes, I agree that capitalism has proven to be more powerful than (bourgeois) democracy -- that's why it has to go.





Yes, I also agree that (bourgeois) democracy is too substitutionist. With current technology there are no longer any logistical barriers to full political participation from all people, as over the implements of industrial production.

Technology is physical capital and technocracy, not democracy!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Capitalism with a remnant of communism (China) has proven to be more powerful than democracy. Democracy is only an excuse to do nothing, counting on others to decide.State-capitalism has been useful in the past for many countries trying to rapidly modernize and leapfrog over their place in the "uneven development" of world capitalism. This is regardless of any claim to socialism - it just organizes the efforts. As capitalists economists describe China: "they play a long-game" meaning rather than capitalist chasing the next quarter's profits, the state can invest in the economy to build large infrastructure that individual capitalists would be unwilling to develop for lack of immediate return, but need never the less.


Technology is physical capital and technocracy, not democracy!Just as economic development isn't "class-neutral" - technology and science, while potentially and in some ways inherently universal, is not applied in a way that's divorced from class.

So if the goal is tecnocracy and we don't want a society run under bourgeois logic by a bunch of wise-men beurocrats, then we'd still need the working class to re-shape society in their collective interests - which means some kind of popular decision-making process in order for the general interests of the class to be expressed.

[the zizekian]

State-capitalism has been useful in the past for many countries trying to rapidly modernize and leapfrog over their place in the "uneven development" of world capitalism. This is regardless of any claim to socialism - it just organizes the efforts. As capitalists economists describe China: "they play a long-game" meaning rather than capitalist chasing the next quarter's profits, the state can invest in the economy to build large infrastructure that individual capitalists would be unwilling to develop for lack of immediate return, but need never the less.

Just as economic development isn't "class-neutral" - technology and science, while potentially and in some ways inherently universal, is not applied in a way that's divorced from class.

So if the goal is tecnocracy and we don't want a society run under bourgeois logic by a bunch of wise-men beurocrats, then we'd still need the working class to re-shape society in their collective interests - which means some kind of popular decision-making process in order for the general interests of the class to be expressed.

Capitalism is about labor exploitation (organization and patience can only hide this exploitation). The labor class frees itself with its courage not with technologies. The only decision needed is the subjective decision by one worker to act courageously.

[ckaihatsu]

Technology is physical capital and technocracy, not democracy!




Capitalism is about labor exploitation (organization and patience can only hide this exploitation). The labor class frees itself with its courage not with technologies. The only decision needed is the subjective decision by one worker to act courageously.


I'll return to my main point -- that addresses the topic of this thread -- that the best next-step is for the private banking system to be placed under workers' control. How the working class decides to make decisions over economics and industrial production is its own concern, and is obviously beyond me as an individual.

[the zizekian]

I'll return to my main point -- that addresses the topic of this thread -- that the best next-step is for the private banking system to be placed under workers' control. How the working class decides to make decisions over economics and industrial production is its own concern, and is obviously beyond me as an individual.

Workers are mostly Chinese nowadays.