[lbo-talk] Zizek speech to OWS

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Mon Oct 10 05:16:10 PDT 2011


[I kind of like this system that's evolved where people give speeches in shortened sentences to suit the People's Mike, and then release the full transcript. I'm not a big fan of Zizek or Naomi Klein, but I enjoyed both their speeches. This seems yet another unexpected benefit of this discussion rather than demand format. It seems to produce much better speeches and get them much more attention. The speeches are about changing the terms of discourse rather than details. Establishing the premise that we have to change the terms, because the old ones don't work, is more important than any particular term. And OWS has created a focal point that amplifies the attempt.]

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/736-slavoj-zizek-at-occupy-wall-street-we-are-not-dreamers-we-are-the-awakening-from-a-dream-which-is-turning-into-a-nightmare

10 October 2011

Slavoj Zizek at Occupy Wall Street: "We are not dreamers, we are the awakening from a dream which is turning into a nightmare"

Slavoj Zizek visited Liberty Plaza to speak to Occupy Wall Street

protesters. Here is the full transcript of his speech.

Don't fall in love with yourselves, with the nice time we are having

here. Carnivals come cheap - the true test of their worth is what

remains the day after, how our normal daily life will be changed. Fall

in love with hard and patient work - we are the beginning, not the end.

Our basic message is: the taboo is broken, we do not leave in the best

possible world, we are allowed and obliged even to think about

alternatives. There is a long road ahead, and soon we will have to

address the truly difficult questions - questions not about what we do

not want, but about what we DO want. What social organization can

replace the existing capitalism? What type of new leaders we need? The

XXth century alternatives obviously did not work.

So do not blame people and their attitudes: the problem is not

corruption or greed, the problem is the system that pushes you to be

corrupt. The solution is not "Main street, not Wall street," but to

change the system where main street cannot function without Wall

street. Beware not only of enemies, but also of false friends who

pretend to support us, but are already working hard to dilute our

protest. In the same way we get coffee without caffeine, beer without

alcohol, ice-cream without fat, they will try to make us into a

harmless moral protest. But the reason we are here is that we had

enough of the world where to recycle your Coke cans, to give a couple

of dollars for charity, or to buy Starbucks cappuccino where 1% goes

for the Third World troubles is enough to make us feel good. After

outsourcing work and torture, after the marriage agencies started to

outsource even our dating, we see that for a long time we were allowing

our political engagements also to be outsourced - we want them back.

They will tell us we are un-American. But when conservative

fundamentalists tell you that America is a Christian nation, remember

what Christianity is: the Holy Spirit, the free egalitarian community

of believers united by love. We here are the Holy Spirit, while on Wall

Street they are pagans worshipping false idols.

They will tell us we are violent, that our very language is violent:

occupation, and so on. Yes we are violent, but only in the sense in

which Mahathma Gandhi was violent. We are violent because we want to

put a stop on the way things go - but what is this purely symbolic

violence compared to the violence needed to sustain the smooth

functioning of the global capitalist system?

We were called losers - but are the true losers not there on the Wall

Street, and were they not bailed out by hundreds of billions of your

money? You are called socialists - but in the US, there already is

socialism for the rich. They will tell you that you don't respect

private property - but the Wall Street speculations that led to the

crash of 2008 erased more hard-earned private property than if we were

to be destroying it here night and day - just think of thousands of

homes foreclosed...

We are not Communists, if Communism means the system which deservedly

collapsed in 1990 - and remember that Communists who are still in power

run today the most ruthless capitalism (in China). The success of

Chinese Communist-run capitalism is an ominous sign that the marriage

between capitalism and democracy is approaching a divorce. The only

sense in which we are Communists is that we care for the commons - the

commons of nature, of knowledge - which are threatened by the system.

They will tell you that you are dreaming, but the true dreamers are

those who think that things can go on indefinitely they way they are,

just with some cosmetic changes. We are not dreamers, we are the

awakening from a dream which is turning into a nightmare. We are not

destroying anything, we are merely witness how the system is gradually

destroying itself. We all know the classic scene from cartoons: the cat

reaches a precipice, but it goes on walking, ignoring the fact that

there is no ground under its feet; it starts to fall only when it looks

down and notices the abyss. What we are doing is just reminding those

in power to look down...

So is the change really possible? Today, the possible and the

impossible are distributed in a strange way. In the domains of personal

freedoms and scientific technology, the impossible is becoming

increasingly possible (or so we are told): "nothing is impossible," we

can enjoy sex in all its perverse versions; entire archives of music,

films, and TV series are available for downloading; space travel is

available to everyone (with the money...); we can enhance our physical

and psychic abilities through interventions into the genome, right up

to the techno-gnostic dream of achieving immortality by transforming

our identity into a software program. On the other hand, in the domain

of social and economic relations, we are bombarded all the time by a

You cannot ... engage in collective political acts (which necessarily

end in totalitarian terror), or cling to the old Welfare State (it

makes you non-competitive and leads to economic crisis), or isolate

yourself from the global market, and so on. When austerity measures are

imposed, we are repeatedly told that this is simply what has to be

done. Maybe, the time has come to turn around these coordinates of what

is possible and what is impossible; maybe, we cannot become immortal,

but we can have more solidarity and healthcare?

In mid-April 2011, the media reported that Chinese government has

prohibited showing on TV and in theatres films which deal with time

travel and alternate history, with the argument that such stories

introduce frivolity into serious historical matters - even the

fictional escape into alternate reality is considered too dangerous. We

in the liberal West do not need such an explicit prohibition: ideology

exerts enough material power to prevent alternate history narratives

being taken with a minimum of seriousness. It is easy for us to imagine

the end of the world - see numerous apocalyptic films -, but not end of

capitalism.

In an old joke from the defunct German Democratic Republic, a German

worker gets a job in Siberia; aware of how all mail will be read by

censors, he tells his friends: "Let's establish a code: if a letter you

will get from me is written in ordinary blue ink, it is true; if it is

written in red ink, it is false." After a month, his friends get the

first letter written in blue ink: "Everything is wonderful here: stores

are full, food is abundant, apartments are large and properly heated,

movie theatres show films from the West, there are many beautiful girls

ready for an affair - the only thing unavailable is red ink." And is

this not our situation till now? We have all the freedoms one wants -

the only thing missing is the red ink: we feel free because we lack the

very language to articulate our unfreedom. What this lack of red ink

means is that, today, all the main terms we use to designate the

present conflict - 'war on terror,' "democracy and freedom,' 'human

rights,' etc - are FALSE terms, mystifying our perception of the

situation instead of allowing us to think it. You, here, you are giving

to all of us red ink.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list