In the piece Eric posted, which was what Zizek said to the crowds three weeks ago, he says that OWS correctly doesn't make demands. In the piece you quote, he criticizes the indignados for not demanding of themselves to be the change they want to see. If they were to demand of themselves the change they want to see *then* they would be expressing "an authentic rage" which is able "to transform itself"..."into a positive programme of sociopolitical change."
Zizek's use of a colon there indicates amplification or example. The fatal weakness of the indignados was their failure to advance a positive programme and an acceptable positive program, in the absence of an entity to whom to make demands, is to make demands of your movement to be the change it wants to see.
Apparently, he had already claimsed that this prefigurative bizzo is worth a shot in a situation where there is no entity to which to address demands.
Sincerely,
Department of Transportation
Charles forwarded: <> On Oct 26, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Eric Beck wrote: <> <>> Occupy first. Demands come later <>> Slavoj Žižek <>> <>> [...] <>> <>> 'What one should always bear in mind is that any debate here and now <>> necessarily remains a debate on enemy's turf; time is needed to <>> deploy <>> the new content. All we say now can be taken from us – everything <>> except our silence. This silence, this rejection of dialogue, of all <>> forms of clinching, is our "terror", ominous and threatening as it <>> should be.' <>> <>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/occupy-protesters-bill-clinton?fb_source=home_multiline&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_action_ids=10100140661325429&fb_ref=U-4t4huzY1t0_f4GnQI3G8X8-CFCONX01FRS-32qm7XXX <> <> That's all very fine and good, but is time so short we've forgotten <> his words on the London riots? <> <> <http://www.lrb.co.uk/2011/08/19/slavoj-zizek/shoplifters-of-the-world-unite> <> <> "The fact that the rioters have no programme is therefore itself a <> fact to be interpreted: it tells us a great deal about our <> ideological-political predicament and about the kind of society we <> inhabit, a society which celebrates choice but in which the only <> available alternative to enforced democratic consensus is a blind <> acting out. Opposition to the system can no longer articulate itself <> in the form of a realistic alternative, or even as a utopian project, <> but can only take the shape of a meaningless outburst" <> <> "The indignados dismiss the entire political class, right and left, as <> corrupt and controlled by a lust for power, yet the manifesto <> nevertheless consists of a series of demands addressed at – whom? Not <> the people themselves: theindignados do not (yet) claim that no one <> else will do it for them, that they themselves have to be the change <> they want to see. And this is the fatal weakness of recent protests: <> they express an authentic rage which is not able to transform itself <> into a positive programme of sociopolitical change. They express a <> spirit of revolt without revolution." <> <> Not trying to prove him wrong here, but I think he owes his audience <> some "connect the dots" action to get from point B back to point A. <> <> <> ___________________________________ <> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk <>
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)