[lbo-talk] [Pen-l] Is democracy the enemy? A reply to Zizek

[Julio Huato]

It would be silly to say that OWS is akin to an insurrection of the
type that overthrew the czar in the spring of 1917.  Ideology,
politics, and economic life have a very heavy inertia.  But the
discontent with the status quo has been brewing for quite a while
here.  Among the middle strata of the population, this discontent goes
back to the imposition of Bush I, the reaction to the crash of 2001,
and especially to the terrorist attack on 9/11.  Impoverished segments
of the working population have hardly had a break, although I believe
the boom of the late 1990s qualifies as such.  In any case, what we
can safely say at this point is that OWS has a highly subversive
potential, particularly in terms of its ability to wake up to
political life sectors of the working population of the country that
have previously had no or little political involvement.  That is a
tectonic shift in the politics of this society.  I know that leftists
love to feel like they are oh so special, and when all of a sudden
others become leftists, the reaction is disbelief and disconcert.
But, yes, man -- there are a lot of new people irrupting into politics
in this new wave of protests.  As Carrol has been saying -- deal with
that new reality.

What I'm saying to Louis is that the role of the left at this point is
to encourage this motion forward, rather than try and set limits to
what it can accomplish.  Because, who knows at this point what this
limits are?  Not Louis.  In fact, often times, Louis exhibits the
mental subtlety of anti-athlete foot powder.  (I know, because I've
been reading his posts on these lists for over ten years now.)  So, he
contents himself with a witticism.  It sounds to me like a nervous
scoff -- his way of dismissing my remarks as non-serious, because he
doesn't have much in the way of substance to refute them.  It's his
game.  But I'm not appealing to him only.

Now, don't get me wrong: this doesn't mean that the laws of political
gravity can be violated.  On Doug Henwood's list, I've been writing on
the importance of political organization, etc.  Here's one item:

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20111024/013596.html

So, yes, we have to be mindful of the formidable difficulties ahead.
But OWS has not been defeated.  If you want to add "yet," go ahead.
But it hasn't.  So, why proceed as if it had been?  Again, IMO, the
psychological basis for this treatment (see how people on LBO-Talk
reacted to OWS, especially at first) is, IMO, the need for leftists to
establish their uniqueness.  It's an understandable (but incorrect)
reaction.  They were against Obama before the people who supported
Obama grew disappointed of him and decided to take matters on their
own hands (e.g. unionized workers).  So, how can those people, who
were "wrong" yesterday can be right today?

Well, it is exactly the other way around.  Gramsci's brutal analogy
against Trotsky holds: It was people like Louis who -- years ago, when
the young girl was not of age yet to bear child -- wanted
(metaphorically speaking) to get her pregnant.  Gramsci didn't follow
up on the analogy, but now those people, contemplating a full-fledged
and healthy woman, are claiming that she is sterile.  So, it is not
us, it's them.  Louis is criticizing Zizek because the guy is
emphasizing the fact that, at this point, the protesters hold the
political initiative and should keep it.  They have the moral high
ground and should hold it.  The other side is somewhat disconcerted.

That may or may not last.  Indeed, we should be clear to note that the
other side still has a very tight hold on the reigns of effective
power (wealth ownership and political power), so I'm not saying we
should condemn reforms or political gradualism in the abstract.  We
need to prepare for what's to come, whichever way the ruling class
decides to throw its pitches.  The political establishment is playing
its game as if OWS didn't exist.  They wish it didn't exist.  But they
must be somewhat concerned, because it's the first time in recent
years that a mass political phenomenon challenges their ability to
manage the political debate.  (The very short-lived Bush vs. Gore
impasse was the only other juncture in recent history that was so
pregnant of political possibilities.  We know it didn't last long.)

Will they regain the political initiative and control?  Perhaps.  Will
they defeat OWS by mere attrition?  Will OWS protesters grow tired and
bored?  Will they repress OWS instead?  I don't deny that such
scenarios are likely, but I will not give any 1%er the pleasure of
presuming that those outcomes should be taken for granted.  That's the
beautiful thing about the moments in history when masses of people
decide to make their own history.

I'm cc-ing the other lists.

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:03 PM, nathan tankus
<somekindofheterodox at gmail.com> wrote:
> Julio, as much as i am incredibly happy about OWS (and i think this
> connects to a conversation we had a year or so ago about why people
> weren't in the streets then) i think you (and if what you say is true,
> lenin too) are underestimating the use of the state's own rules at all
> times. in 2003 i and thousands of others were in the streets
> protesting the iraq war, does that mean it wasn't the time to find
> some state law to attempt to force the invasion to end? the goals, not
> the non-violent means are most important.
>
> --
> -Nathan Tankus
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>