Callum Williamson reviews: Slavoj Žižek, 'The year of
dreaming dangerously'. Verso, 2012, pp142, £7.99
[…]
2011 was a year in which numerous ‘horizontal’ movements,
from Oakland to Madrid, entered the political stage. Žižek is, initially, frank
about the weaknesses of these movements, pointing out that they have now died
down and that their desire to be ‘apolitical’ means they risk becoming coopted
into a reformist project or appropriated by forces of reaction. He points out
that an “honest fascist” could agree with almost all of the demands of the
‘indignados’ (p79). For him “It is here that we encounter the fatal weakness of
the current protests. They express an authentic rage that remains unable to
transform itself into even a minimal positive programme for social change”
(p78). Then there is, of course, the issue of the organisational forms of these
protests - forms that are clearly inadequate for the tasks of social
revolution. Žižek stresses the need for revolutionary movements to create new
forms of organisation and discipline.
Bizarrely, he then proceeds to claim that nonetheless “what
should be resisted at this stage is any hasty translation of the energy of the
protests into a set of concrete demands”, which calls on the movements to
advance a “minimal positive programme” (p78) - the lack of which was just a few
pages earlier described as the biggest weakness of those movements. The author
goes on to say that the key “insights” of Occupy are that it identifies that it
is the economic system itself that needs to be addressed; and that a new kind
of democracy is needed to cope with developments in global capitalism (p87).
Whether these were really the insights of Occupy is highly debateable, but for
Žižek they point towards radical conclusions: “Is there a name for this
reinvented democracy beyond the multi-party representational system? There is
indeed: the dictatorship of the proletariat” (p88). What is missing is any
indication of how exactly we get from protest to power.
The book arrives at the point where the crucial question is
raised: what must revolutionaries do now? The events of 2011 are meant to be
“fragments of a utopian future that lies dormant in the present” (p128). He
continues: “What is needed, then, is a delicate balance between reading the
signs from the (hypothetical communist) future and maintaining the radical
openness of that future” (pp128-29). There are comparisons then between a
communist in our times analysing events and a Christian waiting for god to
perform miracles. But, while communists are acting as political monks, Žižek
adds that well placed, “moderate” demands can affect dramatic systemic change
(p134). What he advocates in practical terms seems to be half economism and
half withdrawal to a position of political spectator.
[…]
No comments:
Post a Comment