Forum Post: It's Definitely Time to Act!
Posted 9 years ago on Aug. 4, 2014, 5:03 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The unintelligible Zizek is full of shit. It's definitely time to act! And there are lots of things that can be done:
Sit-down strikes, general strikes, workers' takeover of industry, occupying abandoned factories and institutions, protest, joining unions, supporting unions, boycotts, starting co-ops, joining co-ops, buying from co-ops, starting/joining organizations and or parties concerned with workers' rights and the environment, build popular movements and organizations that will put pressure on the political system, forcing them to move closer to the left; organize to put left/left-libertarian leaning politicians into office, etc., etc.
Tactics and strategies should of course be planned to a certain extent, but there are lots of things that can and should be done -- now.
World politics is not that complicated: With the help of right-wing politicians and cheering economists, the owners -- the capitalists, the employers and the 1% -- have been given more and more wealth and power. Thru tax cuts and privatization, politicians have shuffled more and more cash into the pockets of the rich, making them more wealthy and powerful than ever. These neoliberal policies have created a vicious cycle in which the wealthy have used their increasing power to become even more powerful, getting more and more control over the political system and the economy.
An increasing amount of wealth and power have in other words been transferred to a non-elected elite of capitalists and owners. This is roughly what's happened these last decades.
So is there an alternative to neoliberalism and state capitalism? Of course. The alternative is to work to towards a society in which the institutions are controlled, not by a powerful state or powerful owners, but by the workers and the communities. The workplaces and resources should be owned and run democratically by the ones involved and affected by them. This idea is not new, it's called libertarian socialism, and goes far back in history.
Many of these ideas have also been tried out in real life, often with great success (cf Mondragon, The Spanish Revolution etc)
The wealthy are the ones in charge -- and it is the task of ordinary people, the 99%, to free themselves from the shackles that the 1% have imposed on them.
The more people organize and get engaged in the things I've mentioned in this post, the closer we'll get to a more free, equal and democratic society.
Your analysis is right on. We live under a corrupted and power driven government that is owned, by money, ego, fear, and false hope. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. But sleeping on the streets is not the cure. We need an objective that is a cure to this 'sickness unto death. The rich get richer and the poor get children. Fine. But our votes don't count as much as the 1%'s money and prestige and propaganda. We have to make our voices, and our votes, matter. We must vote directly on the laws we live under. It's what democracy was meant to be and didn't become because we all couldn't all come together to have open debate and then vote. We have geo-synchronous satellites that enable instant communication, voting - like on American Idol and he Voice, etc. And we can vote on the laws also. See assosactualdemocracy.com, join it, support it, adopt a realistic objective to free us, give us political equality, and command and control over our lives, our treasure, and our lost honor.
People tend to forget that the key part in activism is active. People in action make things happen, sometimes even by accident.
There is no perfect time to act. Throw on some boots, spit some flem on the streets, and make it happen.
[Removed]
Me too. Theres still stuff going on, just not in the massive numbers as before. The media and the state def did what they do best on it.
http://occuevolve.com/calendar-occupy-summerfall-and-s17-schedule-of-actions-meetings-assemblies-and-special-events/
[Removed]
Thanks for the post, a nice touchstone, I do think that it is forgotten that a million mile journey begins with one step, the change we want could come about through revolution though that tends to be bloody with uncertain outcome, or by working within the current system. The current state has developed through a systematic equating of money with freedom then empowering money, we must break that link in the minds of Americans and remind them that their democracy is their freedom their right to vote and use the power of democracy to take the wealth or money power from those who have it if need be to provide for the common good.
agreed - no surprise trashy likes him - "I've received a number of requests to comment on the post: “Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chomsky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong’” (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/slavoj-zizek-responds-to-noam-chomsky.html).
I had read it, with some interest, hoping to learn something from it, and given the title, to find some errors that should be corrected – of course they exist in virtually anything that reaches print, even technical scholarly monographs, as one can see by reading reviews in the professional journals. And when I find them or am informed about them I correct them.
But not here. Žižek finds nothing, literally nothing, that is empirically wrong. That’s hardly a surprise. Anyone who claims to find empirical errors, and is minimally serious, will at the very least provide a few particles of evidence – some quotes, references, at least something. But there is nothing here – which, I’m afraid, doesn’t surprise me either. I’ve come across instances of Žižek’s concept of empirical fact and reasoned argument.
For example, in the Winter 2008 issue of the German cultural journal Lettre International, Žižek attributed to me a racist comment on Obama by Silvio Berlusconi. I ignored it. Anyone who strays from ideological orthodoxy is used to this kind of treatment. However, an editor of Harper’s magazine, Sam Stark, was interested and followed it up. In the January 2009 issue he reports the result of his investigation. Žižek said he was basing the attribution on something he had read in a Slovenian magazine. A marvelous source, if it even exists. And anyway, he continued, attributing to me a racist comment about Obama is not a criticism, because I should have made such remarks as “http://www.vest.si/2009/01/31/zizkov-kulturni-boj/. Of course, sheer fantasy.
It’s not the only case. In fact, he provides us with a good example of his practice in these comments. According to him, I claim that “we don’t need any critique of ideology” – that is, we don’t need what I’ve devoted enormous efforts to for many years. His evidence? He heard that from some people who talked to me. Sheer fantasy again, but another iAs the reader can easily determine, Žižek provides not the slightest evidence to support his charges, but simply repeats what he has probably heard – or perhaps read in a Slovenian journal. No less interesting is Žižek’s shock that we used the data that were available. He “totally rejects” this procedure. There is no need to comment on a remark that gives irrationality a bad name........................................... The remainder of Žižek’s comments have no relation to anything I’ve said or written, so I will ignore them. A question remains as to why such performances are taken seriously, but I’ll put that aside as well.ndication of his concept of empirical fact and rational discussion.
[Removed]
Trashy criticizing others for trolling? That's like a nazi criticizing others for being anti-Semitic.
[Removed]
Why are you talking like this? You're Trashy! Oh yeah, I remember your "anti-union anarcho-syndicalist companies". Kind of an oxymoron, don't you think?
Why don't you leave? You've been banned so many times, why don't you take a hint?
[Removed]
Anti-union AS companies are an oxymoron.
I asked you a question. Why don't you leave? You've been banned so many times, why don't you take a hint?
[Removed]
You've been banned many times before, not by the TT, but by Justine. So why don't you take the hint and leave? Isn't this what you told the TT? So why shouldn't you leave as well?
And why did you pretend to be someone else above by referring to yourself (Trashy) as "him"? Why this dishonesty?
Again, anti-union AS is an oxymoron.
"You don't like anarcho-syndicalism?"
Why did you ask that? Didn't you read the post you chose to respond to? Do you? I suspect not.
[Removed]
[Removed]
zizek sucks. theory is dumb. we must act now
sept 17, 2014 - OWS revival. Zuccotti Park
bring your tent
http://occupywallst.org/forum/local-grocery-chain-boycott-sets-national-preceden/
I wish OWS didn't stop their protesting, general strikes, etc...
What makes you say Zizek is unintelligible?
His post Lacanian analysis is quite clear in my opinion. He takes great pain in explaining his theories both in detail (in his books), and for the layman in his videos).
I can understand you not agreeing with his idea that it is time to think, not act, but I fail to comprehend why you find his point of view unintelligible? I think he's clear with his opinion no?
He basically says we don't yet have a full grasp of the problem and the solutions in theory, so there's no way we can affect real change in practice. Occupy protests for example did not cause a dent in the capitalism system, hence why Occupy eventually died (no one in the streets anymore).
If you think it is time to act, why spend your time on a forum thinking?
Why not start some groups and act?
You've been banned so many times, Trashy. Jart doesn't want you here. Take a hint.
[Removed]
I know it's you posting here, Trashy. There are a couple of factors which show very clearly that it's you. I'm not going to tell you what those are, of course. You don't fool me, you destructive, provocative troll. You've been banned so many times. You're not wanted here. Leave. Take a hint. Bye.
[Removed]
I said bye, Trashy. Again, you've been banned so many times, so why don't you take the hint. Bye.
the guy works of nsa or something
[Removed]
I've received a number of requests to comment on the post: “Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chomsky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong’” (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/slavoj-zizek-responds-to-noam-chomsky.html).
I had read it, with some interest, hoping to learn something from it, and given the title, to find some errors that should be corrected – of course they exist in virtually anything that reaches print, even technical scholarly monographs, as one can see by reading reviews in the professional journals. And when I find them or am informed about them I correct them.
But not here. Žižek finds nothing, literally nothing, that is empirically wrong. That’s hardly a surprise. Anyone who claims to find empirical errors, and is minimally serious, will at the very least provide a few particles of evidence – some quotes, references, at least something. But there is nothing here – which, I’m afraid, doesn’t surprise me either. I’ve come across instances of Žižek’s concept of empirical fact and reasoned argument.
For example, in the Winter 2008 issue of the German cultural journal Lettre International, Žižek attributed to me a racist comment on Obama by Silvio Berlusconi. I ignored it. Anyone who strays from ideological orthodoxy is used to this kind of treatment. However, an editor of Harper’s magazine, Sam Stark, was interested and followed it up. In the January 2009 issue he reports the result of his investigation. Žižek said he was basing the attribution on something he had read in a Slovenian magazine. A marvelous source, if it even exists. And anyway, he continued, attributing to me a racist comment about Obama is not a criticism, because I should have made such remarks as “http://www.vest.si/2009/01/31/zizkov-kulturni-boj/. Of course, sheer fantasy.
It’s not the only case. In fact, he provides us with a good example of his practice in these comments. According to him, I claim that “we don’t need any critique of ideology” – that is, we don’t need what I’ve devoted enormous efforts to for many years. His evidence? He heard that from some people who talked to me. Sheer fantasy again, but another iAs the reader can easily determine, Žižek provides not the slightest evidence to support his charges, but simply repeats what he has probably heard – or perhaps read in a Slovenian journal. No less interesting is Žižek’s shock that we used the data that were available. He “totally rejects” this procedure. There is no need to comment on a remark that gives irrationality a bad name...........................................
The remainder of Žižek’s comments have no relation to anything I’ve said or written, so I will ignore them.
A question remains as to why such performances are taken seriously, but I’ll put that aside as well.ndication of his concept of empirical fact and rational discussion.
[Removed]