In the last decade, Davos and Porto Alegre have emerged as the twin cities of globalization. In Davos, the exclusive Swiss ski resort, the global elite of managers, statesmen and media personalities meets under heavy police protection, trying to convince us (and themselves) that globalization is its own best remedy. In the sub-tropical, Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, the counter-elite of… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (38)Page 1 of 1 pagesLinus Pauling, founder of Linux, was once asked the difference between himself and Bill Gates——-
” I’m a programmer, he’s a marketing man “.
And now Bill Gates is marketing himself as a World Figure, the philanthropist who will solve the problems of Africa . Well, its a nice long way from the problems at home .
A few years back, at Davos, one of that gang made a speech and said (paraphrase from memory)—“WE are the masters now”, and the assembled politicians applauded. Bunch of softheads.
” The business of government is to restrain business “, is not a quote from this frog, but a paraphrase from one of the Gods of the market-worshippers, a Scotsman called Adam Smith.
Posted by frog on Apr 12, 2006 at 5:06 AM Linus Torvalds.
Pauling invented massive doses of vitamin C.
Posted by Major Major on Apr 12, 2006 at 4:57 PM This is the one aspect of progressivism that America, in general, fails to grasp. The problem is the very structure of our economic system. The problem is also one of education. The author of this article has obviously read a great deal on this subject, authors that few Americans hear about, ever. I have 48 credits in philosophy at an American college, enough to graduate, and the closest we got to economic theory, was maybe Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology” which basically lays out the problem we face here: That by embracing a worldview in which the world becomes a resource to be traded, valued in a discrete sense, numbered, counted and evaluated, we risk losing any connection to a view of the world as it is. We risk coming to believe that because we give something a name and list its properties; we understand it, or its role in the world. Such is the malevolent hubris of modern science. But that’s as close as we got, no Marx, no Bakunin, no nothin’.
In my opinion, we risk losing sight of the simple truth that the reason for engaging in the study of the science of economics is the creation of viable models of human economic interaction that meet the needs, and fit the propensities, of humans. Economics is not a field in which one discerns the principles of human social organization and interaction, but one in which the needs and wants of humanity are discerned and a system is designed around them. This is what we lack, a vision of an economic system that works. What does it look like? How do we get there? But it is difficult to get the people working on a solution to problems they know nothing about.
Posted by Phaedrus on Apr 13, 2006 at 8:32 PM American universities, colleges, and schools are afraid to broach the subject of socialism… and we are paying a terrible price for this.
All this crap about “markets,” “market socialism,” and what not, is sidetracking people from real issues.
People are even afraid to talk about socialized healthcare… and by the way, very few activists are even involved in the healthcare debate, which would move us back onto a very progressive track in this country, just as it has done in Canada… just let any two-bit, half-assed reactionary politician try to take universal healthcare away from Canadians and they get booted right out of office… Saskatchewan and Manitoba have had socialist governments for many years now because Canadians aren’t afraid to talk about socialism… and their talking socialism delivers big-time when it comes to healthcare, high-quality, lower costs educations, stronger labor laws… but most importantly, public debate and dialogue is more democratic with socialism talked about.
What the movements for peace and social justice need in this country is a good injection of socialist ideas. Here in Minnesota the two most popular governors were socialists, Floyd Olson and Elmer Benson… that should tell us something if we really want to defeat Bush and big-business… we should be building on the progressive legacy of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party.
People need to start opening their mouths and writing a little more.
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
218-386-2432
Posted by alanmaki on Apr 14, 2006 at 6:36 PM “What makes this group interesting is that their ideology is becoming indistinguishable from that of Antonio Negri, who has praised postmodern digital capitalism, which, according to Negri, is becoming almost indistinguishable from communism. By Negri’s reckoning, both the old Right—with its ridiculous belief in authority, order and parochial patriotism—and the old Left—with its big Struggle against Capitalism—are the true conservatives today, completely out of touch with the new realities as they fight their shadow-theatre struggles. The signifier of this new reality in the liberal communist Newspeak is “smart.” Smart means dynamic and nomadic against centralized bureaucracy; dialogue and cooperation against central authority; flexibility against routine; culture and knowledge against old industrial production; and spontaneous interaction against fixed hierarchy.”
Negri is right on about that. This is preceisly why all social movements fail these days. They are inextricably stuck in an old resistance paradigm. TIme to take it off the streets, and into the shadows. It is where they CAN’T see us where we will be most effective, not where they can. Hereafter, wherever they see us, they control us.
Posted by chuckville on Apr 14, 2006 at 9:36 PM Great piece by Zizek. I just read an entry about Zizek on Andrew Keen’s blog and wanted to share that with you:
http://www.thegreatseduction.com
Posted by sabine on Apr 14, 2006 at 11:28 PM Slavoy Zizek’s caustic, carelessly argued piece reminds one of the Stalinist denunciations of social democrats, Western Marxists and all those other “accommodationists” who for some strange reason lost faith in the dogmatic pursuit of violent revolution. Soros, Gates, et al, are guilty of “liberal communism” because, he says, “The ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity.” Here, one might well ask: As opposed to being counteracted by what? The relentless purchase of leisure islands and private jets? Such reasoning puts him comfortably in bed with right-wing republicans who hate nothing more than rich people (Warren Buffet, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and all the liberal philanthropists out there) who actually oppose tax cuts for the rich, and wish to direct their profits toward the worst off. Some of the “liberal communist” pet projects are frivolous, others are not. But the same could be said for hundreds of well-intentioned left-leaning nonprofits. Gates, in particular, is actually to be commended for focusing “smartly” on specific diseases, vaccines etc. in Africa that can be eradicated instead of issuing vacuous manifestos on ending global poverty. But, according to Zizek, - and this seems to be his central argument – Gates is bad because he is no better than Andrew Carnegie and the robber barons who stole with one hand and fed from the other. He might need to elaborate since, in my book, brutally suppressing organized labor (robber barons) and violating anti-trust laws or outsourcing to talented Indian computer programmers (Microsoft) are not exactly on the same scale of humanitarian crimes. If, of course, you assume that all pursuit of profit is evil – whether you own a small restaurant, a gallery or an airline – then I suppose you can only throw up your hands and retreat to the monastery. In the meantime, we live in this (capitalist) world. And, the real debate should be on how to redistribute surplus wealth more efficiently toward the public good, not on renouncing it altogether. One other note: the fact that Porto Alegre has gravitated toward Davos is hardly earth shattering. Here in Washington, many sideline critics of the World Bank actually quiet down once they gain enough academic pedigree or experience to enter its fold. There, they have a little more influence and a little more money. And, money, even in an imperfect world, can – surprise, surprise - do good things.
Posted by radko on Apr 15, 2006 at 2:04 AM Isn’t it great that Bill Gates gets to choose who he will help and who he won’t; such a great philanthropist—- kind of like a rich little god who makes the decisions of who will live and who will die…. a better alternative would be to bring Microsoft under public ownership, and use the profits to fund a publicly owned, publicly financed, and publicly administered socialized health care system… ditto for the rest of the capitalist enterprises… it is time to place human needs, and the protection of nature, before corporate profits.
By the way, Native people in northern Manitoba, Canada have asked Bill Gates to fund home building for their community because Bush’s clone who was elected to the head of the Canadian government with financing from the capitalist multi-national corporations refuses to fund human needs in Canada, while he has put up signs that all resources are for sale to the lowest multi-national corporate bidder… and then when there isn’t enough money left to finance Canada’s healthcare system, the right-wing think tanks will point their fingers and say, “See, socialism doesn’t work.” It has been months and Bill Gates has yet to respond to this plea for help, how come?
Socialism works just fine. Countries all over the world are clamoring for help from little Cuba’s doctors and the highly trained professional healthcare providers… from Venezuela to Pakistan… Castro even offered tremendous assistance to help the victims of Katrina while that great intellect of capitalist morality sitting in the Oval Office thumbed his nose at the offer, and twiddled his thumbs, sucked down anti-depressants causing his eyes to roll into the back of his head so he couldn’t see the effect of his policies that squandered billions on war while the infrastructure of our own country was going to hell and hundreds of people were left to drown and die.
I don’t see Bill Gates getting the same kind of rave reviews from other governments and the United Nations that Cuba is receiving… might I suggest that we tax the hell out of Bil Gates and Microsoft and give the money to Castro where it will really do some good… and people don’t even have to beg the Cubans for help… this is what I call socialist humanitarianism… it far surpases Bill Gate’s philanthropical endeavors, undertaken solely because it is all tax-deductible.
Oh yes—- how did Bil Gates attain his wealth? You got it, through exploitation of working people… oh ya, being the great philanthropist he is, Bill Gates shipped American jobs to India just to help poor starving people… cheap human labor never even enters the picture does it?
Posted by alanmaki on Apr 15, 2006 at 4:17 AM Of course Zizek is right about this. Big-shot money men who flash their philanthropy cred are doing more than poncing themselves up with good causes… The underlying idea is the answer to systemic problems will be solved by the mega-capitalists, and so, make the world dependent upon the whim of their benevolence. It not only serves their PR goals (and maybe even salves their conscience), it is “disempowering” in the extreme. People should consider the logic behind simply expropriating these plutocrats and using these resources to solve problems as they see fit. But that’s Marxism there, and, as I have discovered, in this world, just voicing the old-school reasoning makes one a persona non grata.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 16, 2006 at 5:54 PM Marxism is what we need more of. That’s why the capitalists hate it so much.
Posted by alanmaki on Apr 17, 2006 at 5:00 AM I can’t help but ask…
When today’s plutocrats are dispossessed and their wealth used for this generation’s social benefits, from where will come the wealth for the next generation’s benefits?
Is confiscation/expropriation really a strategy with a future? At what point will there be no more “excess” profit to scrape up, because no one is willing to invest their time, energy, or wealth in a productive enterprise for fear of having it taken away?
There is ample criticism to made against capitalism when it is practiced without ethical restraint, but that’s more a critique of non-existent ethics than it is the dynamics of the market. There’s no harm in discussing socialism in university, but then socialism’s own weaknesses and failures ought to be included in the discussion. One glaring example is the quickness with which it prescribes the seizing and redistribution of wealth as the major cure for social ills, apparently assuming that those who have invested in the creation of that wealth will continue to do so in spite of the likelihood of seizure.
(Of course new wealth is “created”! Turning plastic, glass, transistors, and wire into a computer IS the creation of new wealth, to cite but one example.)
I tend to think that the real problem in America has little to do with market economics per se, and more to do with government officials having too cozy a relationship with a treasured few corporate entities (particularly when they become lobbyists), which makes it all the more difficult for anyone outside the buddy-network to compete effectively and to make any gains.
One of my main concerns with state control of production is along those very lines, those of crony capitalism. I don’t anticipate that buddy-networks would fade out in a command economy, or one that is primarily-command with a little market mixed in. On the contrary, I think those buddy-networks will be even more the order of the day in that kind of setting, further excluding anyone not beholden to or members of those networks.
I suppose the guiding ethic is that no one at all will be excluded. That would be interesting to see. I’m not aware that it has ever occured.
I haven’t seen any evidence that socialism is inherently more ethical as a system than capitalism. Toleration for human suffering and environmental destruction as the result of one’s activities is the problem, and there are examples of rapacious capitalists and blood-fever socialists throughout history. Nor is socialism obviously more conducive to lasting prosperity for large numbers of people across generations of time than capitalism is, (although their rhetoric can be stirring, for a while) but if any of you has info to suggest that it is these things, I will be curious to read.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 17, 2006 at 10:10 AM Hello Kuya:
I do not think anybody actually needs capitalists to create wealth. Turning plastic, glass, transistors, and wire into a computer does not create wealth. It creates an object. The wealth is created by exploiting the labor nexus, which is, of course, many human beings. As for what’s done with the wealth upon its reification through sale, that’s a matter of distribution. In capitalism, the profit is the capitalist’s, because that’s the person that owns the capital. Think about Bush’s “ownership society” for a minute. The owners he’s really talking about are not America’s middle class home owners, but . . . plutocrats.
“At what point will there be no more “excess” profit to scrape up, because no one is willing to invest their time, energy, or wealth in a productive enterprise for fear of having it taken away?”
Well, that sort of imples that we need some brave entrpreneurs to do all wealth creating for us, right? The idea of reward. It’s an elitist thought. As if people need someone to inspire or show them how to create wealth. Workers go to work every day because they need the money. The point behind some real socialism (or, perhaps, in anarchist parlance, true communism) is that people will be better rewarded for their work, so they will have more of incentive to create wealth. A wage or salary determines how much they get and that’s pretty much fixed.
As for socialism and its ills… I would suggest there are so few examples of successful socialism for a very simple reason: as soon as socialism (or socialist-like reforming) starts to get itself going it is invariably attacked by capitalist forces. Look to Allende’s Chile, Mossadeq’s Iran, and the recent history of U.S. involvement in Venezuela for a few ready examples. (This is without even getting into how western, capitalist forces backed the counterrevolutionary Russian civil war, what happened with the later Stalinist aberration, etc. when considering the former Soviet Union.) So, I suggest we have not really seen much decent socialism in the first place.
I agree that socialism is problematic and like your point about corruption and “buddy networks.” Michael Albert (who’s pretty anarchist) addresses some of these in his critique of “coordinatorism” (Parecon).
Anyway, I hope some of these thoughts help. Of course, the idea of expropriation is what capitalism fears the most. And I fully expect it to employ every resource at its disposal to destroy and discredit. However, it’s actually kind of common sense thing, expecially in the context of a burgeoning ecocide. (For some good reading about the incompatibility of capitalism and environmental preservation consider taking a look at Joel Kovel’s work).
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 17, 2006 at 4:08 PM You people rock! The thing is we can get wrapped in a lot of very serious talk about issues that are far removed from the point. That’s the nature of philosophic discussion. The point ultimately is this. We have moved from a world in which the actions of our day, how we spend our time, were dictated by the needs of survival, to one in which we face the possibility of not “having” to do anything. After all, that was and is the entire reason for the technological drive of the enlightenment, the end of scarcity. Well, guess what, its here. We can, as of this moment, provide for the basic needs of every human on this planet, every 2.8 seconds a child dies because we CHOOSE not to. We are still living with the decaying remnants of a system that worked very well to quickly exploit the resources of this planet in order that we might free ourselves from the drudgery and misery of the dangerous and mundane tasks necessary for our survival. This system is not suited however to the task of maintaining an economy of equilibrium in which the focus is no longer on the mastery of nature, but the “production” of a world in which every child born on this planet has equal access to food, shelter, healthcare, education, and a future free from the threat of warfare. And if we live in and promote a system in which this is not our dream, where we allow so many to live such miserably short and wasted lives, how can any of our moral and religious principles not be hopelessly compromised by the gnawing reality of our hypocrisy.
“The world’s 497 billionaires in 2001 registered a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion). It is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity. ” http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp
Posted by Phaedrus on Apr 17, 2006 at 7:25 PM Phaedrus: Well said. That’s exactly the point. We choose not to do anything about it. The in-your-face-ness of today’s disparity of wealth is simply repulsive. Something “needs to be done.” Ignacio Ramonet said, “To begin with, we have to disarm the power of international finance which over the past 20 years has eaten into the world of politics, reducing the space available for democracy.”
http://mondediplo.com/2000/01/01leader
But how do you disarm interantional finance? It’s very difficult when people are afraid to talk about the simplest things, so, yes, that old idea of expropriation needs to come back into conversational currency.
It’s all very revolutionary, you know.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 17, 2006 at 9:19 PM Thanks, Theo and Phaedrus, for your responses.
Phaedrus’ point (if I may rephrase it a little) is perfectly correct that unless we act out our values in a way that actually relieves suffering and deprivation, we really are nothing but hypocrites. When I say “we”, of course, I could be talking about either capitalists or socialists. Both lay claim to a mechanism that, they each say, has the best chance to defeat poverty if it is implemented properly.
There’s the rub, yes? IF they’re implemented properly. How and under what conditions proper implementation takes place is rarely answered.
In my more cynical moments, I think of capitalists as those who think it’s OK to hoard more than they’ll ever need, and socialists as those who think it’s OK to grab from others what they don’t have themselves. Capitalists want to possess rather than share, socialists want to take rather than make. Those are glib generalizations, more like one-liners than anything else, but you get the drift.
I think my main attachment to a market approach has much to do with my conception of why people work at all, and especially why they try to be more creative, ambitious, and efficient than the guy next to them. To indulge in a grain of projection, why do I, Kuya, work my ass off? The answer is, incentive. I want more than basic maintenance for myself and my family, and in the here-and-now, I can obtain those rewards only if I keep my focus and apply my efforts toward earning them.
You see, it’s less about heroic entrepreneurs (although there are in fact lots of quite admirable entrepreneurs, they’re really not all rapacious gluttons) and more about regular people working to make ends meet and to improve their lot in life. Working for a reason that is meaningful within the context of their (our) oh-so-ordinary lives.
(continuing)
Posted by Kuya on Apr 18, 2006 at 6:26 AM (to continue)
It’s pretty un-glamorous, not much inspiring, surely not heroic. It’s drawn from my experiences in a lot of different jobs, in which ordinary, semi-educated (or semi-uneducated) people work because they need to in order to survive and who, in some few cases, take chances and apply added efforts because they envision something better that they think is worth taking a shot at.
There is a level of elitism in that idea, I suppose, or at least an acceptance of inequality. But the concept that a harder worker, with more imagination, fortitude, and discipline than his neighbor, should actually get more material rewards does not offend me. In fact, I’m offended much more by what I perceive is in hand too often. When work and brains and heart really don’t get one ahead because the game is rigged in favor of the cronies of authority, or when in a world of relative plenty there is still squalorous poverty, or when generosity is negated by misappropriation and waste of assistance to those who need it most, that really is offensive. It’s a measure of just how little a system-in-practice departs from the vaunted ideals that system’s proponents trumpet.
I imagine some would call me a thief, at least in a moral sense, to think that I deserve anything more than a man living a deprived life of drudgery in some multi-millionaire’s factory. But it’s not about what I deserve by right as much as what I am willing to earn with my labor. I truly don’t see those two things in the same light.
Besides, is not the expropriator also subject to being called a thief? More so, perhaps?
I do tend to meander when I write, sorry for that, but I’ll try to sum up by saying that I’m unconvinced that economic systems alone (whatever their prejudices and rhetoric) can do the trick. I’ve lost any faith I may once have had in the ability of ideology to re-create the world into the lovely image it upholds. The socioeconomic systems appear to me to be subject to the values of those who act within them, by which I mean the conceptions those people have about their connectedness to others and how deliberately they avoid fostering another’s suffering. In the absence of those compassionate values, in my opinion, capitalists really are just clever gluttons, and socialists really are just thieves with the gift of the gab.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 18, 2006 at 6:27 AM Ooopsy…
I should have said, “It’s a measure of just how MUCH a system-in-practice departs from the vaunted ideals that system’s proponents trumpet.”
Thanks for your indulgence.
K
Posted by Kuya on Apr 18, 2006 at 6:30 AM Hi again Kuya and thanks for writing.
Actually I don’t pay to much attention to any kind of capitalist/socialist dichotomy much these days. Personally, I think it kind of oversimplifies things and, ultimately, devolves into another ideological quarrel for the political hobbyists to tally up some talking points.
So when I read your “one liners” here:
Capitalists: clever gluttons who want to possess rather than share.
Socialists: thieves with the gift of the gab who want to take rather than make.
Well, no offense, but that’s what I’m getting and I think you’re admitting as much.
Now, when I talk about expropriation (to which you responded), I do not think any mainstream socialist party or politician (and they are mostly descended from the European social democrats) actually advocate that old school plan, certainly not here in Greece and obviously not in America (where I am from, and where one notices a real dearth of any kind of socialist thinking). Expropriation’s real deal, radical revolutionary stuff and not part of mainstream “socialist” politics, which have become quite amicable to the 3rd way agenda, something Zizek has described as “a social democracy purged of its minimal subversive sting, extinguishing even the faintest memory of anti-capitalism and class struggle.”
I hope you see what I mean. The expropriation stuff is so far “out of the box” today, nobody dares talk about it. Today’s socialists are mainly social reformers and market regulators. “Thatcherite” advocates of capitalism think capitalism is the only way.
Talking about expropriation gets to the radix, cuts to the chase, tells it like it is.
What we are talking about here is how capitalism has led to a global plutocracy, which makes sense, given capital’s tendency to accumulate. (This also entails all kinds of social problems like subsidized military spending to offset economic stagnation [Sweezy and Baran] and, as Talleyrand noted, you can’t really sit on those damn bayonets. So we get wars [and its destruction of extant capital] and all kinds of other bad systemic by-products.) And let’s not forget about the environment… Capitalism is about maximizing profits and a company that takes pains to be environmentally sound will get wiped out by one that does not incur those kinds of expenses. Without a global regulatory system, environmental ravagers have an advantage in the market place: a lower price point for the same product.
But why bother trying to regulate all this systemic rapacity? Why not just do away with the whole mess? I mean, I am not saying I can actually do anything about per se, and were I so inclined to enter the political sphere with this sort of agenda I would be wiped out by the modern media propaganda machinery because I would not have the resources to compete in the message market… That’s capitalism for you.
However, I can think it and personally advocate it. Because it makes sense to me.
Best,
Theo
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 18, 2006 at 2:15 PM Re: The previous posts. Revisiting the old capitalism versus socialism smackdown is fruitless for a variety of reasons. Principally because any discussion pitting market efficiencies versus public goods is inherently country-specific. Cultural nuances, geographic limitations, historical legacies and geopolitical constraints all play a role. For the record, the U.S. could use a little more socialism (understood as a state-controlled allocation of resources toward the public good), and Europe could use a little less – overly-rigid labor laws and tax policies have hampered growth; a mediocre, underfed public health and education system are now less than a shining exemplars of egalitarian ideals. My beef with Zizek was a little more specific. If he has such snide disdain for wealthy people who donate to socially progressive causes – because presumably they tapped their wealth from an evil well (a rather broadstroke presumption by the way) – then what is the alternative? An omniscient technocratic elite that superbly allocates social surplus toward the most pressing matters? Perhaps. But how would they decide? A council of elders? Public polls? Who ranks Darfur versus Tsunami, Aids versus Malaria, inner city versus rural, Foreign aid versus domestic? The fact of the matter is development is a messy, piecemeal process with priorities sometimes media-driven, sometimes crassly political, sometimes strategic but rarely out and out saintly benevolence; and the more you put these problems under a microscope the messier they get. Who controls the money on the ground (often corruption comes into play)? Who will maintain the program after the initial funding dries up or the public loses interest? My sense is that Gates, Soros et al. figured that until that omniscient bureaucracy is in place, it’s better to take action and contribute, in some small way, to incremental progress. If Zizek has a better idea, he should put it out there. Trashing the Davos gabfest is child’s play in comparison.
Posted by radko on Apr 18, 2006 at 6:02 PM Great comment radko,
If I may, I’d like to comment on part of your comment.
“My beef with Zizek was a little more specific. If he has such snide disdain for wealthy people who donate to socially progressive causes – because presumably they tapped their wealth from an evil well (a rather broadstroke presumption by the way) – then what is the alternative?”
IMO, Zizek’s overall “mission” seems to be to restore dialectical materialism to its proper place… as a part of the western philosophical tradition and to extricate it from (what I like to call) the the ideology carnival.
When you begin asking if we might be ruled by gerousies or polls or whatnot, I’d say the solution is right under our noses…
If we command our resources, we will decide; and that’s real democracy.
Within capitalism itself, one may commend someone like Gates who swears he will give away all his money before he dies (leaving enough for his children to become part of the plutocracy itself, of course).
Sure guys like Gates and Soros want to, as you say, “contribute, in some small way, to incremental progress.”Zizek, as always, hints at the real alternative: let’s just revolt.
I don’t really worry if Zizek himself is going to say this sort of stuff. He might not. He may choose to shroud it all in Lacanian lingo. I look forward to the the Parallax View (according to the LRB, where this piece first occured, it’s “his latest attempt to rehabilitate dialectical materialism”) ,to see what he’ll say and do.
I am not too concerned. I’ll say it myself and in words that are plain as day.
Let’s revolt.
I can say that because I can.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, Zizek is not “trashing the Davos gabfest” so much as he is trashing the benevolent plutocracy as a something we should look to as a progressive force.
And he’s 100% correct on that score. As I said above:
“The underlying idea is the answer to systemic problems will be solved by the mega-capitalists, and so, make the world dependent upon the whim of their benevolence. It not only serves their PR goals (and maybe even salves their conscience), it is ‘disempowering’ in the extreme.”
And I think that stands.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 18, 2006 at 11:49 PM radko “smart ” donations to charity are minuscule compared to the ravages of increasing globalising “de-development ” .
If some or all of their donations are tax-deductible, how ironic. Is this true ?
Structural violence hits hardest “down there”, but we can all see it at home, too.
Posted by frog on Apr 19, 2006 at 11:06 PM Hello again to all,
I like this thread. Always interesting to read all of your ideas.Here’s a revolt I think won’t work at all: an armed struggle. I’ve come to believe that this actually strengthens the more beastly aspects of the state, rather than weakening it. Talk about expropriation! Shoot a uniform, and three more uniforms will spring up in its place. A failing strategy, and besides, it only enhances the likelihood that the rebels will become what they themselves hate, ending up as beastly or more so than the ones they’re supposedly saving us from.
If you want to poke a hole in the economy of Big Money, how about this revolt: living a deliberate, calculatedly modest life. Divorce yourself from the cult of recreational shopping. A pushcart revolution, in which the rebels non-violently detach themselves from the hyperactive, glitz-ridden economy in favor of participation in a local, tiny-scale economy. Instead of going to work for the mega-company, one could scrape up the cash for the necessary permit and sell burritos at the beach or park. Instead of going into hock to own a house, rent a modest apartment, or even just a room if you’re single. Instead of cable TV, get a library card for yourself and your kids. Instead of department stores, get your clothes from thrift stores and second-hand outlets (my coolest shirts have been 2nd hand; a while back I bought 5 or 6 for the price I’d pay for only one at the mall, no lie). Mend rather than replace. Pay with cash as often as possible. Buy a lot less meat. Go to the local farmers’ market instead of the grocery chain. Take the bus or bike, or walk. Play with the kids and teach them to fish and fly kites, rather than paying $100s for a day at Stand-In-Line World. Pare down to a level of striking simplicity, and…
...publicize! Don’t be silent! Email family members and elected representatives and tell them why you’ve opted to step off the treadmill. Upload digital video telling your stories, and send them to TV stations (particularly foreign ones, but also the ones in your area). A bunch of people could share the cost of full-page ads, effectively saying not “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more!”, but “I’m fed up, and I’m not going to give you anything more!” Maybe Oprah Winfrey will take an interest and want to talk to you.
Would it catch on? Who knows? But, you’d be healthier, pay way less taxes (therefore not feeding bureaucrats and militars), and have confidence that you’re not figuratively in bed with someone you detest. It would be an unequivocal demonstration of your disgust with the economics you consider so destructive, and a counterexample against it.
Caveats: 1) your kids may revolt in their own right, and become the neo-corporate children of what they may perceive as their neo-hippie parents (as per the late 1970s/early 1980s); 2) if you get sick or injured, medical care could be frighteningly scarce (as per the millions of people who can’t afford decent insurance right now); 3) you’ll be considered fringe weirdos by mainstreamers in your countries (as per your already earned status as a “weirdo” to so many right now… not that that’s a bad thing, mind you, just that you all don’t fit too well into the mainstream… haha, as though I did!).
Anyway, it’s a thought. It would be concrete, active, and would be an actual alignment of ideas with behavior. That in itself would be revolutionary.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 20, 2006 at 8:38 AM Hello Kuya and all
Yes. This is an unusually civilised thread. Sometimes the trolls and shills can be stimulating with their Islamophobia and other assorted rabidities, bullshit statistics, personal attacks, idiotic historical analogies, and so on , but this proves we do not need them .
Of course you are right about an armed struggle. . Maybe if I lived your side I would have an old rifle safely locked away, but will never know ! That Halliburton building of “refugee camps” and the prevalence of SWAT teams, Homeland Security apparatus, sure are worrying. Our Riot Police are not too pretty, either.
I counted 200 of them when I arrived very early for our Cherbourg demo on saturday, but they stayed right out of sight, and a dozen local cops stopped the traffic for our 20000 or so rainsoaked marchers.A lifestyle revolt can be lonely at first , as one pursues a solitary maligned course, but then you get to meet others and a community arises.
One of my recreations is window-shopping for tools I need to work. I repair and make what I can, but keep an eagle mechanic’s eye on specs and prices when I go to the city. Keeps me up to date on the mountains of trash that people buy, and always a nice feeling to walk out empty-handed.
I gave away my lottery-prize TV at Christmas, life is far better without that temptation, and watch the very occasional bit on this machine. I also much enjoy watching interviews on your TV, recently GWB, Zinni, McCain, Billfrist, some laughs.
No buses in the normandy countryside, and too many hills for biking, but I’m watching the electric bike market . Instead of lugging a ton of van around, some pedalling and a little assistance will give me an easy 20km range to friends, grandchildren, the beach, the public library, and the best pub in frogland.
There we exchange books, views and news. And honorary frog pools what he learns from you and the net. Much more fun than yet another netblog. Unsurprising that Globalization and its offshoots often come up, because it is all around us.
They want to close the local hospitals, privatise the municipal water utility, the free public infant schools ? Follow their tracks….One daughter , husband and friends building five houses together, it makes sense. Local bread, cheese, eggs, veg in the garden, a little meat from the local butcher, maybe I’ll start keeping chooks again to spite the avian flu propaganda .
caveats—- 1 children—
- mine grew up on books, bikes, and no telly, and haven’t revolted , ....longterm .
One recently considered buying a new car, then reconsidered . Her old ford does 6litres/100kms, which I can’t translate offhand , but is very low, and the capital cost written off long ago. She may get another five years out of it., or buy new when the idiot manufacturers and government realise that we want cars closer to 3litres/100km !
Another building her wooden eco-house; the last one building quality wooden houses.2 health—the State system here not yet completely destroyed, and top-up insurance ‘just ’ feasible for weirdos and automatic for most of the salaried. .
3 initial distrust of fringe weirdos can evolve into repect ....
Some Obvious Compromises—
I still inevitably buy stuff made in China, can only acknowledge that some is made by virtually slave labour.
I still use too much Oil, but am planning responses for higher fuelprice.
I’m still on Bill Gates’s hiccupping software bundle, but the son in law is too busy on his house to put me onto Linus Torvalds.
Posted by frog on Apr 20, 2006 at 3:22 PM Hi again everybody:
I am all for living as independently of capitalism as well as one can. However, I don’t think it’s an answer. It’s something we can do on an indivudual level as consumers and that’s its extent. When we start to look at things on systemic level however, it becomes increasingly clear (at least to me) that something more substantial needs to be done than moving out into the wilds to grow tomatoes (although I do love a good tomato).
Of course going around advocating violence is silly. It giives you a bad rep. It remains entirely possible that systemic social change might occur without violence. I suggest this would entail a vast majority of the planet’s population wanting something other than capitalism.
The question then remains, would capitalism (and so, individual capitalists) shoose to repress such a mass social movement through violence?
To me, that is the question.
So, when I, personally, advocate expropriation of the global plutocracy, I am not advocating violence. There is no reason this could not happen through the agency of politics.
However, I contend that advocating no revolution at all is the same as advocating violence. The already existing violence of these wars for resources, the violence against the environment, and the economic violence that’s visited upon the world’s poor.
Because, as a Marxist, I think all these things inhere in the social mechanism of capitalism.
Take care.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 20, 2006 at 8:32 PM Theo
Saving time and energy by partly withdrawing from the system leaves space for study and organising . Never been so busy .Repression of new movements—- the threat and occasional use of physical violence is already here in the rich ‘north’. Always has been.
Anti-terrorism Laws are now in place just about all over, and they are already being used to persecute non-violent activists. Just try wearing the wrong tee shirt in London Paris or Washington .
They own most of the MSM, our job is to expose the lies and the news they don’t publish. Our peaceful demo on saturday was surprisingly well covered in the paper and on the news, and a few films on Chernobyl (20th anniversary) are coming on the television. They show how the french govt took absolutely no measures to protect the people, unlike many others.
got to keep on kicking and watch out for agents provocateurs—the oldest trick in the book.
Posted by frog on Apr 20, 2006 at 10:29 PM True frog…
I was thinking about what kind of people actually become provacateurs, and I randomly stumbled on this by Serge:
“But there are not only people who are agents out of cowardice; there are, much more dangerously, those dilettantes and adventurers who believe in nothing, indifferent to the ideal they have been serving, taken by the idea of danger, intrigue, conspiracy, a complicated game in which they can make fools of everyone. They may have talent, their role may be almost undetectable.
...The illegal revolutionary – above all the terrorist – acquires a terrible cast of mind, a formidable will, daring, love of danger ... If then, following a common shift of mentality, under the influence of petty personal experiences – failures, disillusionment, intellectual deviations – or of temporary defeats of the movement, it turns out that he loses his idealism, what is to become of him? If he really is strong, he will steer clear of neuroticism and suicide; but in some cases he may become a faithless adventurer, to whom all means seem good to attain his personal ends. And provocation is one means which they will certainly try to put to him.”
I think this is why if one engages in social struggle at any level, it’s important not to have personal ends (except maybe becoming a better person than you already are).
And that is about ethics and virtue.
“The agent also must be in a certain condition when he does them; in the first place he must have knowledge, secondly he must choose the acts, and choose them for their own sakes, and thirdly his action must proceed from a firm and unchangeable character.” (Aristotle)
Sorry, don’t want to get off topic. Just wanted to share.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 23, 2006 at 12:46 AM theo
What you say above applies very well to large numbers of political adventurers who start out on the revolutionary or just highly critical left , and become “faithless adventurers” complicit with all they hated when young.
My actual local french point was that however peaceful we are, cops can be , and are ....., infiltrated in demos to do the ‘provocations’ to make headlines, justify repression.
Agreed on the wider scale,——anyone who has got as far as contemplating acts of terror and murder, who is psychologically or morally weak, is pretty easy to suborn. They easily can become a terror-professional, a gun or bomber for hire.
In the context of this discussion on Globalization and the possible answers to it, the rightwing proponents of corporate domination will use ALL means to win. They have the billions of dollars, we have, potentially, the billions of people, which must be scary for them.
They have the Media, for what it is worth, but we have the large numbers of people whose “Windows” glitches on them…..!
Posted by frog on Apr 23, 2006 at 8:23 PM Oh yes, Frog, you are right to make the point. They do send in cops to the demos. At the big antiwar demo in DC two of them took up position right next to me! I know all about it. It’s almost funny, well, in a bitter, sad, and wretchedly unfunny way. At the previous demo in San Fransisco, there was a lot of footage of some guy beating the living daylights out of some other guy and the quasi-fascist shockjock Michael Savage was using it as “evidence” to condemn the demos, actually asking for then director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge to send in the National Guard. (I am totally serious about this.) It was pretty obvious to me that was a media stunt. As for all that Serge stuff, what I got from it was that those who just kind of fiddle around with revolution (maybe they find it kind of glamorous or something) are the most susceptible to not sticking it through and become “turncoats.” The longer I have been doing this, the more I realize it’s about constant intellectual training and, like the kung fu adgage goes, “one must learn to eat bitter.”
As for us versus the global plutocracy, I don’t think it’s just about about numbers versus dollars or guns versus numbers… At some level, they will simply have to surrender, however unwillingly; because we have nothing to lose, and, given the reality of capitalist ecocide, they have nothing to win.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 23, 2006 at 10:02 PM theo
every now and then some cop provocateur gets searched and they find his ID !I resonated with your ‘constant intellectual training’ comment.
I’ve been more or less told that my job is to be a ‘guru’. It happened by accident, when people with less time to research asked me to sum up what’s going on….and I gave my first stumbling answers.Since then, I have been working harder to be really sure of what I think, and know, with much help here as LB and countless others refine details about eg—real unemployment figs US. (bureau of census U6 v U3)
It becomes rather a nightmare hard-time, as geopolitics, GMO’s, WTO, IMF, Chernobylnuclear Power, IAEA, WHO, BigPharmaceutologicals, ETC, ETC,ETC,ETC, are all related, and I’m only one of me !
Here in france one of the propaganda arguments of the Right is to point to the Brit Economic Miracle, and to suggest to copy it. The MEDIA all push this bullshit thing, and my job locally, particularly as a brit, is to debunk it.
I was outraged a few years ago, when Bill Gates had a personal meeting with Chirac. Why in the name of God should a multi-billionaire have THAT access ? OK he “gave” a few millions , mostly of bullshit ‘free’ programmes away to schools, but that was pure marketing.
I’m sure that they still think they can still win. Wish I had your optimism on that one, but remember how the Wobblies got crushed in the US , maybe these guys believe they can do a chinese repression on all of us.
.
Posted by frog on Apr 24, 2006 at 12:40 AM Frog: Hmm… personally, I’d suggest walking away from “gurudom” at your earliest convenience. Nobody should look to anyone else for too many answers or as a repository of knowledge. It creates a situation in which others can become dependent “brain bugs” (Starship Troopers) and that means that if something happens to those brains, the rest are left headless. I’m not saying your situation is like that (I don’t know anything about you), just pointing out thatt’s how hierarchies, factions and leaders originate and contributes to “followership.”
Debunking media propaganda is one of all time favorite activities.
There is o winning and losing. This is not a war and it’s not a football match. There is no score. The way I see it, “they” are very aware of what they are doing and, accordingly, also know if they don’t take a seat, the only thing they’ll have to win is a hothouse planet sizzling up all life like some kind of microwave oven, or maybe, if they are really lucky, a nuclear winter wonderland.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 24, 2006 at 6:45 PM Theo
Agreed . Unfortunate choice of word. Mostly a news service/encyclopaedia , giving info when asked , and just getting on with research and activities….I’ve never been into the ‘leader’ or follower thing, particularly as an expat non-voter, but do have the local stake of kids and grandkids.
Well, plenty of losing going on now, here. Too early to say if opposition seriously growing, next few months hanging in the balance as national politicians politicking as usual.
Whatever happens business as usual for us, more work…
Posted by frog on Apr 24, 2006 at 7:44 PM That sounds pretty straightforward and you are right, it’s about the kids that may or may not have much of a world left for them. I suppose all I mean meant was: make sure that anyone that looks to you are a “guru” is left with the idea to go out and become one too. This is the way.
There’s a great, if weird, moment in Trotsky, the closing words of Literature and Revolution, where the idealized vision of a future society and the Nietzschean notion of the uebermensch sort-of-kind-of meet. (Now, I am not exactly a Trotskyite per se (SWP, etc.). I’ve just read the guy and, as a revolutionist and writer, always found him indispensable.)
“It is difficult to predict the extent of self-government which the man of the future may reach or the heights to which he may carry his technique. Social construction and psycho-physical self-education will become two aspects of one and the same process. ... The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise. “
Now that’s optimistic!
Of course, both Nietzsche’s “uebermensch” and Trotsky’s “communist man” are projected, future ideals, states of being to strive towards and evolve into. (And take a look at Literature and Revolution for a cool comment on Nietzschean philosophy, herdism and the “struggle for one’s opinion, for one’s project, for one’s taste.”) I don’t really know whether or not this is the case. I do not believe we need to be content with simply “becoming.” That is to say, all of can actualize out potential and our potential is, by and large, as humans, perfectly equal. I think every single one of us can attain that state today, beginning right this instant, and the first step is to not look to those who know more than we do as teachers and gurus or mentors, but simply as friends and equals. Clearly if you have knowledge and others do not, you should transmit it; but as they say, don’t give them fish, give them angling.
And that’s how we and why are going to win. Because the social model we are up against does not believe in real egalitarianism, but operates within the framework of leaders and followers, rulers and ruled, etc., etc. Now, in our historical moment, this little truth gnaws away at the minds of many who secretly believe and understand it, but seem unsure how to begin going about the scary business of maximizing themselves. The other day, I described this to someone like this: Breaking away from a world where one allows others to think for oneself can look a lot like jumping into an abyss. So one suffers from some sort of spiritual or intellectual acrophobia, gets the jitters, and doesn’t jump. However, the nature of an abyss is to never end, it just goes on and on forever, so, somewhere in the midst of this mad and frightening drop, one might get bored of falling all the time and consider trying to fly. And fly we do, because we are not talking about a physical fall, we are talking about the human mind and the powers of the human mind are infinite. “Only in his brain is man the most highly developed living organism, not in other organic capabilities however” (Bloch).
(cont.)
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 24, 2006 at 11:12 PM (...continued from above.)
This will to just take the plunge is well illustrated in scenes in ‘The Matrix’ as well as in Grant Morrison’s ‘Invisibles’. It’s just something you have to go through at some point in your life. So, all a “guru” can hope to do is teach people how to make that leap in the first place (all this is kind of a weird image for a discussion of gurus, because “guru” implies weight, but I’m sure you see my point).
When we look to the “liberal communists” Zizek describes, we are looking at a situation in which those with all the pecuniary power on this Earth are to solve all its problems without actually doing anything about the systemic “problem-engine” that is monopoly capitalism. These people are the liberal wing of the ruling planetary plutocracy and, as Zizek says, useful sometime allies in some aspects of social struggle. However, the modus operandi they are condemned to employ is to act as benevolently-minded agents of social change, whereas we can correctly note that this very situation helps prevents humanity at large from becoming what it can be. So we need to do something about that.
And to quote Bloch (one of my all time favorites!) yet again:
“[I]f human beings have grasped themselves, and what is theirs, without depersonalization and alienation, founded in real democracy, then something comes into being in the world that shines into everyone’s childhood and where no one has yet been—home.”
Again, the idea here is that, socially speaking, historically speaking, we are in a state of becoming. This is very true. All I want to say is that on a personal level, there will never be any sort of true democracy unless we ourselves have a society of composed only of peers and I think that’s a kind of power that surpasses mere numbers.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 24, 2006 at 11:13 PM Oops… forgot to include scare quotes here:
And that’s how we and why are going to “win.”
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 24, 2006 at 11:20 PM Not so sure about the—useful sometime allies—i’d need a long spoon to sup with them .
Never come across Ernst Bloch, will have a look around later, Marc Bloch an inspiration, though, historian and Resistant. .
An example for our time.
Must go, work to do in a few hours for a Resistant , now 86, who survived that other invasion
Posted by frog on Apr 25, 2006 at 1:18 AM Yeah, I am supposed to be asleep because I am said I do some scullery work in preparation for the European Social Forum here in Athens.
Yes, I take your point. That was a poor paraphrase on my part. The way Z put it was not about “useful sometime allies,” but “necessary tactical alliances.” (“Necessary” being the key word.) Anyway, I am in agreement with his overall assessment here.
The Spirit of Utopia was just translated into English. It’s mostly about music, but a lot of Zizek’s thoughts about the “messianic” nature of Marxism are already there in Bloch.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 25, 2006 at 3:38 AM Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.
And get out in the street and help drive out the Bushite junta. Struggle against fascsim. When we defeat fascism we can work on building socialism.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:39 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Slavoj Zizek
- Making the Illegal Legal
Israel’s Kafkaesque bureaucracy colonizes the occupied West Bank one settlement at a time. - Iran on the Brink
Warning to the Persian cat: Don’t look down! - Why Cynics Are Wrong
The sublime shock of Obama's victory - Through the Glasses Darkly
What if the between-the-lines Republican message (don't be afraid, there will be no real change) is the true illusion? - The Audacity of Rhetoric
- The Ambiguous Legacy of ‘68
Forty years ago, what was revolutionized -- the world or capitalism?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
