Bill Ayers speaks out! An In These Times exclusive.

Thanks, But Well Do It Ourselves

Against enlightened administration

By Slavoj Zizek

Amish communities routinely practice the institution of rumspringa (from the German herumspringen, to jump around). At 17, their children (who until then have been subjected to strict family discipline) are set free and allowed, solicited even, to go out and experience the ways of the “American” world around them. They drive cars, listen to pop music, watch TV and get… return to article

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Zoom OutZoom In Reader Comments (7)

    Page 1 of 1 pages

    Nah, it was because the Constitution proposed under this vote was a lousy deal.  It ensured the French, for example, less rights than did their original constitution under the French revolution.  Nobody will vote for a lousy deal, if they’ve got any sense, even if it’s for a “product” they’ll eventually WANT - they hold out for a better one!  (Which is what unions should be doing but don’t, often enough nowadays.)

    (Though I didn’t know all that stuff about the Amish “rumspringa” - fascinating!!)

    United Kingdom Posted by Liz on Jun 19, 2005 at 12:48 PM

    The European Constitution was 450 pages long?

    That’s enough reason to vote NO right there!

    Maybe the people who wrote it were trying not only to allow a Europe to be born, as a constitution would do, but, since the baby was long overdue in their view, to specify Europe’s maturation up to puberty, or beyond, on its birth certificate?

    Back to the drawing boards. A one page constitution ought to be the aim, one which any European can pick up and understand. Then it just takes time to evolve from there.

    Thailand Posted by John Francis Lee on Jun 19, 2005 at 6:48 PM

    Indeed, the ‘No’ vote of the French and the Dutch was a resounding slap in the face for all those who have proclaimed the ‘end of history’. However I am not so sure about positing Eurpoe as the only site of resistance to the peculair US blend of post modern capitalism allied to pre modern social and political forms. The fact is that Europe’s economy is thoroughly integrated with that of the US, and is part of the whole global system of capital. Indeed, several large European firms dominate US markets as effectively as US firms once dominated Europe’s markets.

    I do not think that Europe can remain a ‘social market capitalist island’ in a sea of general global immiseration. That is a fantasy. The ‘No’ vote was a last depairing refusal - but in the end, the future awaits us all. That is, unless the US working class is able to rouse itself and attack the beast in its own lair. The reality is that the working class of the third world together with that of the US will either drive the stake or it will not be driven at all. IMO, the single most important movement today is the US anti war movement. If that movement can be developed into a general critique, then refusal of this last most virulent form of naked imperial aggression, then the US ruling class will have something to worry about. The movement in the US will be hastened to the extent that all progressive forces there work to assist the US working class organise, irrespective of their immigration status, in every workplace and town across the country. And it will not be assisted if the usual pattern of US unions trading concessions at home for support for US foreign policy persists. However I think this time there are grounds for hope that the lessons of the last 50 years may have been absorbed and understood by even the most obtuse US trade union leader. Let’s hope so. For every-one’s sake!

    Australia Posted by Jane Doe on Jun 20, 2005 at 1:12 AM

    Thank goodness for the French.  Any country that gives 10% of its votes to Trotskyist parties (who are to the LEFT of the Communist [Stalinist] Party of France) has my respect.

    Also, thank goodness for people who seem to get it; like Jane Doe.  Although I don’t support inter-classist movements like the anti-war movement.  Nor do I believe the unions are workers’ organizations, but that’s another point.

    Soviets or extinction: that is humanity’s choice.

    United States Posted by Maximillian Al-Dakari on Jun 21, 2005 at 11:53 AM

    “Soviets or extinction: that is humanity’s choice”

    Can you say false (as in stupid!) dichotomy? Those of us who have been to the former soviet union or its satellites can only gasp at such ignorance as quoted above. The widespread destruction of both the environment and the human spirit being the most visible of the causalities. . .

    United States Posted by howFunny on Jun 21, 2005 at 12:06 PM

    howFunny,

    Apparently you don’t know what soviets are.  If you did you would understand that the the so-called Soviet Union was a soviet state in name only.  You would know that soviets continue to reappear every couple of decades, and are not Stalinist organisations but workers’ organisations.  Look at your history:  Russia 1917, Germany 1918, Hungary 1919, China 1927, East Germany 1956, Hungary 1956, Checkoslovakia 1968, Iran 1979, and Iraqi Kurdistan 1991.  In each of these cases (a few of the better known ones), soviets arose with little or no knowledge, by the participants, of the past history of soviets.  With no eadership or political party organizing them.  They sprung up spontaneously, as workers found a way to organize outside (and against) the unions.  Often the workers felt as if they were creating something new.  But the organisational form of soviets has existed since the Paris Commune of 1871.

    I happen to believe that soviets are the working class’s natural response to humanity’s crisis.  And I also think that a global regime of soviets is necessary to the very survival of civilisation, and perhaps the survival of our species. 

    You can disagree with the opinions I have, but I am not ignorant on this issue at all.

    United States Posted by Maximillian Al-Dakari on Jun 21, 2005 at 12:41 PM

    I’m going to have to agree whole heartedly with John Francis Lee on this one… I believe the french and the dutch rejected the new constiution because the vast majority of people do not have the time or the ability to crawl through hundreds of pages of legalese.  People have enough trouble reading through the fine print on a mortgage application - is it hard to believe that someone might be reluctant to vote for a document that may have some hidden clause which will take away their basic freedoms?

    If the EU wants a new constitution, they should follow KISS:  Keep it simple, stupid.  Declare some broad statements about freedom of the state and freedom of the individual, define the roles of the courts and the executive, and then let the courts determine the minutia of detail.  If history repeats itself (as it seems to) this will lead to a stable, responsible democratic state.

    Canada Posted by ChefQuix on Jun 23, 2005 at 8:01 PM
    Page 1 of 1 pages
  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
Also by Slavoj Zizek
Popular Discussions