Zizek at Occupy Wall Street

The Transcript:

We are all losers, but the true losers are down there on Wall Street. They were bailed out by billions of our money. We are called socialists, but here there is always socialism for the rich. They say we don’t respect private property, but in the 2008 financial crash-down more hard-earned private property was destroyed than if all of us here were to be destroying it night and day for weeks. They tell you we are dreamers. The true dreamers are those who think things can go on indefinitely the way they are. We are not dreamers. We are the awakening from a dream that is turning into a nightmare.

We are not destroying anything. We are only witnessing how the system is 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 nothing beneath this ground. Only when it looks down and notices it, it falls down. This is what we are doing here. We are telling the guys there on Wall Street, “Hey, look down!”

In mid-April 2011, the Chinese government prohibited on TV, films, and novels all stories that contain alternate reality or time travel. This is a good sign for China. These people still dream about alternatives, so you have to prohibit this dreaming. Here, we don’t need a prohibition because the ruling system has even oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time. It’s easy to imagine the end of the world. An asteroid destroying all life and so on. But you cannot imagine the end of capitalism.

So what are we doing here? Let me tell you a wonderful, old joke from Communist times. A guy was sent from East Germany to work in Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors, so he told his friends: “Let’s establish a code. If a letter you get from me is written in blue ink, it is true what I say. If it is written in red ink, it is false.” After a month, his friends get the first letter. Everything is in blue. It says, this letter: “Everything is wonderful here. Stores are full of good food. Movie theatres show good films from the west. Apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot buy is red ink.” This is how we live. We have all the freedoms we want. But what we are missing is red ink: the language to articulate our non-freedom. The way we are taught to speak about freedom— war on terror and so on—falsifies freedom. And this is what you are doing here. You are giving all of us red ink.

There is a danger. Don’t fall in love with yourselves. We have a nice time here. But remember, carnivals come cheap. What matters is the day after, when we will have to return to normal lives. Will there be any changes then? I don’t want you to remember these days, you know, like “Oh. we were young and it was beautiful.” Remember that our basic message is “We are allowed to think about alternatives.” If the broom [?] is broken, we do not live in the best possible world. But there is a long road ahead. There are truly difficult questions that confront us. We know what we do not want. But what do we want? What social organization can replace capitalism? What type of new leaders do we want?

Remember. The problem is not corruption or greed. The problem is the system. It forces you to be corrupt. Beware not only of the enemies, but also of false friends who are already working to dilute this process. In the same way you get coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, ice cream without fat, they will try to make this into a harmless, moral protest. A decaffeinated process. But the reason we are here is that we have had enough of a world where, to recycle Coke cans, to give a couple of dollars for charity, or to buy a Starbucks cappuccino where 1% goes to third world starving children is enough to make us feel good. After outsourcing work and torture, after marriage agencies are now outsourcing our love life, we can see that for a long time, we allow our political engagement also to be outsourced. We want it back.

We are not Communists if Communism means a system which collapsed in 1990. Remember that today those Communists are the most efficient, ruthless Capitalists. In China today, we have Capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American Capitalism, but doesn’t need democracy. Which means when you criticize Capitalism, don’t allow yourself to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and Capitalism is over. The change is possible.

What do we perceive today as possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand, in technology and sexuality, everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon, you can become immortal by biogenetics, you can have sex with animals or whatever, but look at the field of society and economy. There, almost everything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes by little bit for the rich. They tell you it’s impossible. We lose competitivity. You want more money for health care, they tell you, “Impossible, this means totalitarian state.” There’s something wrong in the world, where you are promised to be immortal but cannot spend a little bit more for healthcare. Maybe we need to set our priorities straight here. We don’t want higher standard of living. We want a better standard of living. The only sense in which we are Communists is that we care for the commons. The commons of nature. The commons of privatized by intellectual property. The commons of bio-genetics. For this, and only for this, we should fight.

Communism failed absolutely, but the problems of the commons are here. They are telling you we are not American here. But the conservatives fundamentalists who claim they really are American have to be reminded of something: What is Christianity? It’s the holy spirit. What is the holy spirit? It’s an egalitarian community of believers who are linked by love for each other, and who only have their own freedom and responsibility to do it. In this sense, the holy spirit is here now. And down there on Wall Street, there are pagans who are worshiping blasphemous idols. So all we need is patience. The only thing I’m afraid of is that we will someday just go home and then we will meet once a year, drinking beer, and nostalgically remembering “What a nice time we had here.” Promise yourselves that this will not be the case. We know that people often desire something but do not really want it. Don’t be afraid to really want what you desire. Thank you very much.

Marx & Occupy Wall Street

In light of the Occupy Wall Street movement that has now spread itself from the United States and into Europe, I find it important not to forget a crucial passage from Marx's Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859):

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.

A distinction, here, is crucual -- that is, between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production (i.e. the 2008 financial crisis) and the ideological forms in which we 'become conscious' of this transformation (i.e. Occupy Wall Street). The global financial crisis was, without a doubt, a major transition within the capital relation that helped in the ever-continuing process of consolidating capital. It was the inevitable Correction of the housing market and the logical outcome of neoliberal economic policies (specifically, the repeal of the Glass-Steagel Act). Speculation and betting against bad mortgages -- in short, those perverse and amoral 'activities' of banks like Goldman Sachs and Citi, the activities Occupy Wall Street has gathered to protest -- are not 'new' for capitalism, nor are they remotely 'excessive' or 'corrupt' or anything else. Quite simply, these acts at last 'made real' what has always been the truth of capitalism: that profits are always-after-the-fact. They either will be or have been -- they never are. Yes, investment bankers 'created money out of thin air' by using mathematically complex formulas called derivatives, but in some ways this has always been true. 'One must spend money to make money', as the old saying goes, but 'making money' only occurs when someone else is spending it (in the case of derivatives, when someone else 'makes good' on their debt). If no one is there to fill the expected consumer-role, capital, as Marx says, "turns to fetters."

Occupy Wall Street is the Notion of change, but I'm not yet convinced it has developed into the proper ideological form. This is not to say that the movement is naive or wrong or any other such thing -- rather, it needs to 'catch up' to history. This is not 1968. We cannot storm the financial district and expect them to give up their capital simply because we think it is unjust. If it is a battle of right against right, they will always win because they have the force, the political and financial capital to protect themselves. While this may sound like defeatism, in fact it is the arena of possibility -- we have to beat them at their own game. We don't like capitalism. We don't like Wall Street. I agree with these sentiments. But rather than 'tossing capitalism out', which may work in less developed countries (and even then, not so easily), I think there is a possibility to move through capitalism toward something else -- to become better capitalists than the capitalists, to shift capitalism into a system in which it no longer sees itself. Perhaps, instead of demanding the end of Wall Street, we should be demanding shares. That is, what if every American citizen had shares in every American company? Would this be capitalism? Or would it be the very communism of which Marx deemed inevitable? The difference, here, is not about the means of production itself, but who owns them. Occupy Wall Street is not angry because capitalism failed -- on the contrary, capitalism has done precisely what it does best. Occupy Wall Street is angry, rather, because only 1% of the population controls the means. The trick, I think, is to take control of capitalism. This may sound paradoxical, but I'm convinced it is the only action with a chance of success given the recent material transformations of capital. After all, we cannot decide for our neighbor what color he may paint his wall -- not, unless, we own his house. And so perhaps this is what the movement should seek to become: the new landlords of Wall Street.

Chris Hedges and Occupy Capitalism

Occupy Rome

Occupy London Stock Exchange: Day 1