Ideology or Pragmatism? The Occupy Movement

On October 26th, Slavoj Zizek published on the Guardian's website an essay called "Occupy first. Demands come later." Zizek writes that the outpouring of energy that drives the occupy movement does not require direction.

[Bill] Clinton thinks that the protests are "on balance … a positive thing", but he is worried about the nebulousness of the cause: "They need to be for something specific, and not just against something because if you're just against something, someone else will fill the vacuum you create," he said...

What one should resist at this stage is precisely such a quick translation of the energy of the protest into a set of concrete pragmatic demands. Yes, the protests did create a vacuum – a vacuum in the field of hegemonic ideology, and time is needed to fill this vacuum in a proper way, as it is a pregnant vacuum, an opening for the truly new.

Zizek, although a skilled orator, lives in the world of theoretical action and symbolic gestures. He is overjoyed that "capitalism" is the target, that protesters demand a reorganization of society rather than a jobs bill or healthcare overhaul.

This is one reason I have not been moved to participate in any of the Occupy movements. Without a goal, the energy may be squandered. The people have turned out in droves to show their support for the 99%, to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the current state of capitalism. Who now will take that energy and wield it as power? If not used to enact real change that folks can see, what is the point? Occupy Wall Street becomes a fashion, a trend, a teenager locked in perpetual disaffection and immobility.

Zizek recognizes that the vacuum in the hegemony must be filled, but he hopes that the grand sweep of anti-capitalism is not hedged by smaller, more manageable asks.

The art of politics is also to insist on a particular demand that, while thoroughly "realist", disturbs the very core of the hegemonic ideology: ie one that, while definitely feasible and legitimate, is de facto impossible (universal healthcare in the US was such a case). In the aftermath of the Wall Street protests, we should definitely mobilise people to make such demands – however, it is no less important to simultaneously remain subtracted from the pragmatic field of negotiations and "realist" proposals.

Zizek argues that establishing pragmatic goals brings one into the language of capitalism and thus compromises the radicalism of any potential outcome. This reminds me of the maximalist Communist stance that refused to work with governments at all, even on behalf of working people, unless the government would speak in their language of class struggle and revolution.

Community organizers make change by identifying concrete, achievable goals that the people care about and which bring real benefit to their lives. They do not get caught up in rhetoric that leaves people scratching their head at the end of a campaign, wondering if they vanquished classism or not.

I agree with Zizek that the anger need not be of a single mind at this point. But it is the role of the organizers, of the leaders, to channel that anger for a common good, to (yes I'll say it) capitalize on the opportunity at hand and to bring real benefit to real people.

What one should always bear in mind is that any debate here and now necessarily remains a debate on enemy's turf; time is needed to deploy the new content. All we say now can be taken from us – everything except our silence. This silence, this rejection of dialogue, of all forms of clinching, is our "terror", ominous and threatening as it should be.

If it's just a matter of time for new ideologies to fill the hegemonic void, then what are we waiting for? The folks in Zuccoti park won't be there forever. The movement will soon become stale. Without direction, it will fail to make the impact it hopes will be its legacy. I don't believe the movements are large enough to inspire "terror." The unreasoning, unreasonable mob will get bored and go home, having accomplished nothing but a spectacle.

To realize its potential, the Occupy movement needs to build consensus around shared issues and make explicit demands. The people have shown their power, but will they exercise it?