Read Online Demanding the Impossible by Slavoj Žižek - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Slavoj Žižek
Ads: Link
very good argument for capitalism. Let’s be frank. Until now, capitalism has always inextricably generated a demand for democracy. It’s true there were, from time to time, episodes of direct dictatorship, but, after a decade or two, democracy again imposed itself – like in South Korea or in Chile after Pinochet. But then, things started to move. But I wonder if this so-called “capitalism with Asian values,” a Chinese-Singaporean authoritarian capitalism, is not a new form of capitalism, which is economically even more dynamic. It’s productive and it functions even better. But it doesn’t generate a long-term demand for democracy. Now, however, the link between democracy and capitalism has been broken.
I really think that this is what should worry us, this big divorce slowly developing between democracy and today’s capitalism: the success of Chinese communist-run capitalism is an ominous sign that the marriage between capitalism and democracy is approaching a divorce. And here, I’m not into leftist paranoia saying that this is some kind of dark plot. I think it is economic logic itself . How to get out of this problem is a big task. I don’t have any easy solutions. I just see the problem and urge everyone to look for the solution.
Some of my friends are enthusiastic about Latin American populism. But I am rather skeptical about it as a right solution. I think Chávez was getting crazy and going down and down. Now it’s developing slowly into this typical Latin American populism, with a strong leader who made rather strange, eccentric decisions. And it became embarrassing. Chávez prohibited some songs as being dangerous for the morals of the young. And he forced the public station to play some Catholic melodrama. It’s simply losing the edge. He became a total, omnipotent leader. He had talk shows: Aló Presidente Práctico and Aló Presidente Teórico . He discussed theory with the people. Alas, I don’t believe in Latin American populism and I think this will ruin it.
Lula was much more efficient. Here I agree with Negri: Lula is more interesting than Chávez. He succeeded, in an almost wonderful way, in keeping things within a democratic framework. He didn’t mess with capitalism too much, so it worked, but at the same time he did create a lot for the poor and middle classes. It’s incredible to see how much poverty was abolished. Negri is right. Lula followed one of the formulas: one was a purely party democratic system. But he had a problem with his smaller parties, on which he had to rely, so what did he do? Corruption. He systematically paid the small parties to support his power in Parliament. I also would have done the same – it’s dirty, but it works.
But when everybody knew and tried to stop him, he did something that was really genius. He and his government collaborated with various social movements – for example, ecologist, workers, and farmers. So the government is related not only to the parties, but also to participatory movements. And this brought a new dynamic. It is a dialectical relation between government and social movements. The political axis was not only rooted in the party structure within the government, but was also in constant dialogue, exchanging pressure and cooperation with these movements. The miracle is that he didn’t screw it up. Economically it worked. So maybe in the short term this is one of the possible models. Somehow all these civil society movements should think not just about organizing a big demonstration once a year in Trafalgar square or wherever, but about engaging in a more active cooperation. Maybe this is what can work. I don’t have any better formulas here.
18
Rage Capital and Risk-Taking Revolutionar y Changes
Does activism arise when people feel secure enough to take political risks? For example 1968, during a time of global economic expansion. Or does it take place when people are in severe pain or the rage capital is high enough? What
I really think that this is what should worry us, this big divorce slowly developing between democracy and today’s capitalism: the success of Chinese communist-run capitalism is an ominous sign that the marriage between capitalism and democracy is approaching a divorce. And here, I’m not into leftist paranoia saying that this is some kind of dark plot. I think it is economic logic itself . How to get out of this problem is a big task. I don’t have any easy solutions. I just see the problem and urge everyone to look for the solution.
Some of my friends are enthusiastic about Latin American populism. But I am rather skeptical about it as a right solution. I think Chávez was getting crazy and going down and down. Now it’s developing slowly into this typical Latin American populism, with a strong leader who made rather strange, eccentric decisions. And it became embarrassing. Chávez prohibited some songs as being dangerous for the morals of the young. And he forced the public station to play some Catholic melodrama. It’s simply losing the edge. He became a total, omnipotent leader. He had talk shows: Aló Presidente Práctico and Aló Presidente Teórico . He discussed theory with the people. Alas, I don’t believe in Latin American populism and I think this will ruin it.
Lula was much more efficient. Here I agree with Negri: Lula is more interesting than Chávez. He succeeded, in an almost wonderful way, in keeping things within a democratic framework. He didn’t mess with capitalism too much, so it worked, but at the same time he did create a lot for the poor and middle classes. It’s incredible to see how much poverty was abolished. Negri is right. Lula followed one of the formulas: one was a purely party democratic system. But he had a problem with his smaller parties, on which he had to rely, so what did he do? Corruption. He systematically paid the small parties to support his power in Parliament. I also would have done the same – it’s dirty, but it works.
But when everybody knew and tried to stop him, he did something that was really genius. He and his government collaborated with various social movements – for example, ecologist, workers, and farmers. So the government is related not only to the parties, but also to participatory movements. And this brought a new dynamic. It is a dialectical relation between government and social movements. The political axis was not only rooted in the party structure within the government, but was also in constant dialogue, exchanging pressure and cooperation with these movements. The miracle is that he didn’t screw it up. Economically it worked. So maybe in the short term this is one of the possible models. Somehow all these civil society movements should think not just about organizing a big demonstration once a year in Trafalgar square or wherever, but about engaging in a more active cooperation. Maybe this is what can work. I don’t have any better formulas here.
18
Rage Capital and Risk-Taking Revolutionar y Changes
Does activism arise when people feel secure enough to take political risks? For example 1968, during a time of global economic expansion. Or does it take place when people are in severe pain or the rage capital is high enough? What
Similar Books
