Adbusters

OWS Now What?

Insight from Spain's Indignados.
The Day After

In his famous speech at Occupy Wall Street, Slavoj Žižek offered the people in attendance (and curious internet users around the world) an important warning in the form of friendly advice. “Don’t fall in love with yourselves. We’re having 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?” For the indignados of the 15-M movement in Spain, the general election results of November 20th marked the start of the metaphorical day after.

This article is available in:

That the right-wing Partido Popular would take an absolute majority of the government with only a minor increase in votes due to the spectacular disintegration of popular support for the outgoing Partido Socialista was no surprise to anyone, especially the indignados. What may have surprised some, however, is the relatively low intensity of mobilizations since the right wing took office and, slowly but steadily, announced that they would implement the same neoliberal policies and violent austerity imposed by technocratic regimes in Greece and Italy. As Amador Fernández-Savater recently put it, the questions on a lot of peoples’ minds seem to be, “Where are all those people who occupied the plazas and neighbourhood assemblies during the spring? Have they become disenchanted with the movement? Are they incapable of making lasting compromises? Are they resigned to their fates?“

Fernández-Savater doesn’t think so. “With no study in hand and generalizing simply based on the people I know personally and my own observations of myself, I think that, in general, people have gone on with their lives… But saying that they’ve gone on with their lives is a bad expression. For once you’ve gone through the plazas, you don’t leave the same, nor do you go back to the same life. Paradoxically, you come back to a new life: touched, crossed, affected by 15-M.“ And as he so eloquently puts it, 15-M is no mere social organization, but “a new social climate“. But how does a social climate organize itself? What new possibilities have revealed themselves after months of self-management, cooperative civil disobedience and massive mobilization, and what remains to be done?

Over time, the wave of mobilizations that first hit the shores of the Mediterranean and extended outwards over the course of 2011 has overcome its initial, expressive phase. This phase managed to substitute the dominant narrative with our own. We now know that the problem is not some mysterious technical failure we call a crisis but the intentional crimes of a cleptocracy. This distinction is crucial: while the first suggests a management dilemma that opposes left- and right-wing approaches to the crisis, the second draws a line between the 1% who abuse power in order to steal from the people and those who refuse to consent and choose to resist in the name of the other 99%.

Having reached this point, the obvious question becomes, “Now what?“ Of course we should continue to protest together, especially if we choose to do so intermittently and massively, favouring a general critique of the system over particular causes. And at the smaller scale, that those specific struggles continue to take the streets is also desirable. However, it is fundamentally important that these struggles are not overly disconnected from one another or the more general movement; that they unfold beyond their own spaces (hospitals, schools, factories, offices and so on) and into the broader metropolitan spaces of cleptocratic dominance. These processes serve to keep the questions that guide the movement alive and, therefore, adapting to the always changing situations in which they operate. Yet the question of what alternatives we can provide remains.

The conquest of political power, particularly in liberal democracies, is not the most important task of social change. Political change tends to occur once social changes have already taken place. Thus, if what we desire is to change existing social relations and inequalities, it makes little sense to prioritize a change of political power with the hope that social change will be installed from above. Instead, the first challenge, as John Holloway once put it, is to “change the world without taking power“, to build and strengthen the alternative institutions of the commons.

By institutions, of course, we are not referring to the institutions of a political regime such as parliaments, executives and the like. Nor are we referring to those which may lie between the regime and the movement, such as political parties, unions or other organizations. We are referring to institutions which provide a foundation for the movement and are defined by their own autonomy: social centres, activist collectives, alternative media, credit unions and co-operatives. Institutions like these constitute no more and no less than material spaces in which we can articulate the values, social practices and lifestyles underlying the social climate change taking place all over the world.

In many places, these alternative institutions are already under construction. In Catalonia, the Cooperativa Integral Catalana, which serves to integrate various work and consumption co-ops in the region through shared spaces, education, stores, legal services, and meetings, already has 850 members, thousands of users and has inspired more “integral co-ops“ all over Spain. Meanwhile, in the United States, 130 million Americans now participate in the ownership of co-operatives and credit unions, and 13 million Americans have become worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies, six million more than belong to private-sector unions. Over the coming weeks and months, we hope to explore some of these alternative institutions and the possibilities they open up for the 99%.

In their seminal work Empire, political theorists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri examine the way in which a cleptocratic Empire controls people through what Michel Foucault called biopower: “a situation in which what is directly at stake in power is the production and reproduction of life itself“. In many ways, this is the force we are defeating when our experiences together in the streets, the plazas and the assemblies inform our daily lives and our decisions in the long run. The spectacular moments we share are an exhilarating, fundamental source of energy for the movement all over the world. They are also fodder for a sensationalist mainstream media which devours events to leave us with the superficial scraps of headlines, sound-bites and riot porn. But the revolution is not being televised precisely because it is happening inside and between us. We are moving too slowly for their sound-bites because we are going far, wide and deep. And, if we play our cards right, we will be in control of our time, our work and our lives before they know it.

20 comments on the article “OWS Now What?”

Displaying 1 - 10 of 20

Page 1 of 2

Anonymous

A very well thought out article, expressed clearly and concisely- bravo to Adbusters and the authors for not letting the American tradition of the celebration of the moron take center stage.

Stanhopea26

Maybe, and I must stress maybe, we should take a leaf out of the ANC book back in the dark days of apartheid and quote "Long walk to freedom." and consider civil disobedience in the form of vanadlisim and poperty destruction.

SnakeArbusto

Please do not equate civil disobedience with vandalism and property destruction. Please do not attempt to discredit the ANC by associating them with such acts. Please do not advocate vandalism and property destruction or any illegal acts here. Please take your attempts to discredit those with a genuine concern for the world and its people elsewhere. All you are discrediting is any organization that would aid and abet people like you and their transparent attempts to discredit.

Kyle Stone

This article is distracting, and does not offer a salient perspective on the spectrum of possibilities for the future of the occupy movement. Oh, where to begin? The Zizek quote, which affirms a point Zizek has repeatedly emphasized in a slew of other articles and speeches, is directly opposed to the kind of "revolution without revolution" perspective advocated by Holloway and the likes. You literally could not understand a single work from Zizek and miss this point. Let's get one thing clear: if you cannot tolerate a modicum of power, hierarchy and organization, you do not avoid becoming mired in these kinds of problems, you simply grant nefarious and mal-intentioned institutions the right to utilize them without so much as a struggle. Michael Hardt admits this point directly; at an event at NYU in 2011 he directly admitted that his Empire series does not adequately grasp what the kind of institutional challenges brought to bear through Tunisia, Egypt, and the following Occupy movements.

I think the role for Adbusters in this movement is dwindling to a graduate end. It's a shame: there IS a mode of culture jamming available to us which is not purely symbolic but is not afraid to directly confront the contradictions borne out through the paradoxical practices of corporate enterprise and neoliberal government strategy. We've seen it before through RTMark and related projects, and we can re-create it again. But Adbusters cannot lead this charge.

Anonymous

I didn't really interpret the article as an end-game scenario, just proposing a next step that builds strengths where they can be built in the meantime. Of course power needs to be taken on, but it also needs to be undermined as much as possible in ways that favor us. Elites aren't resting, they're consolidating power immensely as we speak. I don't think it's a bad idea to build up our own where we can in the meantime.

But I don't quite get what your point is. Should we just map out exactly what Zizek thinks and follow that as a strategy? Should we not interpret various sources to reach conclusions? Is Zizek's thesis on power not to be challenged, while Holloway's can be, despite the fact that Zizek still struggles to understand what the true problem of Stalinism was, mystifying his crimes as some sort of mythological Greek tragedy instead of atrocious crimes against humanity, while the rest of humanity doesn't need to think twice about the fact that he was a tyrant imposing a pre-determined model as he saw fit? Or are you saying that Zizek owns the ideas he treats and that when he says there's a contradiction, that means there's a contradiction, no matter what others think? Because that's the sort of cult-of-personality reasoning that leads to Great Leaders...

Anonymous

For 2012, I suggest the Occupy Movement picks a battle and sticks with it. Those of us who can't be out there occupying (family, work, living far from a city...) are still a majority in favor of most demands that were voiced in 2011 at Occupy Wall Street (or other occupied places).
Let's make ONE change in 2012. Make a survey with Adbuster or Avaaz or something and... GO FOR IT!

paulavelezcastillo

I’m a master student of digital media at the Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, in Medellin, Colombia. I’ve always been very passionate of cyberactivism, and I’m also an activist, so the subject of my thesis it’s the cyberactivism in social networks. I need your opinions about ciberactivism, if you want to help me with a few questions just click the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHFnS3BiT2l6VHJEd2F2TkI2RVlVeFE6MQ Beforehand thank you very much!

Anonymous

"change the world without taking power"?, really? This is your prescription? This is why the sooner the Occupy movement moves away from Adbusters, the better it's chances for success will become. You represent a false-radicalism, a dead-end for social change with such absurd politics of non-politics.

Contrary to what you preach, the occupy movement has already started the quest for capturing power in politics (a number of different ways and places), whether you - the psudo-radicals of this movement want it or not. Behind your words (and the words of those who mold your ideology) one sees the misguided interpretation of a new type of lifestyle anarchism that is bound to ultimately resolve itself into liberalism. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.