Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Slavoj iek Resistance Is Surrender: What to Do about Capitalism ...

1 of 8

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/slavoj-zizek/resistance-is-surrender

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
(More Information)
Back to article page

Slavoj iek
One of the clearest lessons of the last few decades is that capitalism is indestructible. Marx
compared it to a vampire, and one of the salient points of comparison now appears to be that
vampires always rise up again after being stabbed to death. Even Maos attempt, in the
Cultural Revolution, to wipe out the traces of capitalism, ended up in its triumphant return.
Todays Left reacts in a wide variety of ways to the hegemony of global capitalism and its
political supplement, liberal democracy. It might, for example, accept the hegemony, but
continue to fight for reform within its rules (this is Third Way social democracy).
Or, it accepts that the hegemony is here to stay, but should nonetheless be resisted from its
interstices.
Or, it accepts the futility of all struggle, since the hegemony is so all-encompassing that
nothing can really be done except wait for an outburst of divine violence a revolutionary
version of Heideggers only God can save us.
Or, it recognises the temporary futility of the struggle. In todays triumph of global capitalism,
the argument goes, true resistance is not possible, so all we can do till the revolutionary spirit
of the global working class is renewed is defend what remains of the welfare state,
confronting those in power with demands we know they cannot fulfil, and otherwise
withdraw into cultural studies, where one can quietly pursue the work of criticism.
Or, it emphasises the fact that the problem is a more fundamental one, that global capitalism
is ultimately an effect of the underlying principles of technology or instrumental reason.
Or, it posits that one can undermine global capitalism and state power, not by directly
attacking them, but by refocusing the field of struggle on everyday practices, where one can
build a new world; in this way, the foundations of the power of capital and the state will be
gradually undermined, and, at some point, the state will collapse (the exemplar of this
approach is the Zapatista movement).

8/16/2012 12:59 PM

Slavoj iek Resistance Is Surrender: What to Do about Capitalism ...

2 of 8

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/slavoj-zizek/resistance-is-surrender

Or, it takes the postmodern route, shifting the accent from anti-capitalist struggle to the
multiple forms of politico-ideological struggle for hegemony, emphasising the importance of
discursive re-articulation.
Or, it wagers that one can repeat at the postmodern level the classical Marxist gesture of
enacting the determinate negation of capitalism: with todays rise of cognitive work, the
contradiction between social production and capitalist relations has become starker than
ever, rendering possible for the first time absolute democracy (this would be Hardt and
Negris position).
These positions are not presented as a way of avoiding some true radical Left politics what
they are trying to get around is, indeed, the lack of such a position. This defeat of the Left is
not the whole story of the last thirty years, however. There is another, no less surprising,
lesson to be learned from the Chinese Communists presiding over arguably the most
explosive development of capitalism in history, and from the growth of West European Third
Way social democracy. It is, in short: we can do it better. In the UK, the Thatcher revolution
was, at the time, chaotic and impulsive, marked by unpredictable contingencies. It was Tony
Blair who was able to institutionalise it, or, in Hegels terms, to raise (what first appeared as)
a contingency, a historical accident, into a necessity. Thatcher wasnt a Thatcherite, she was
merely herself; it was Blair (more than Major) who truly gave form to Thatcherism.
The response of some critics on the postmodern Left to this predicament is to call for a new
politics of resistance. Those who still insist on fighting state power, let alone seizing it, are
accused of remaining stuck within the old paradigm: the task today, their critics say, is to
resist state power by withdrawing from its terrain and creating new spaces outside its control.
This is, of course, the obverse of accepting the triumph of capitalism. The politics of
resistance is nothing but the moralising supplement to a Third Way Left.
Simon Critchleys recent book, Infinitely Demanding, is an almost perfect embodiment of
this position.[*] For Critchley, the liberal-democratic state is here to stay. Attempts to abolish
the state failed miserably; consequently, the new politics has to be located at a distance from
it: anti-war movements, ecological organisations, groups protesting against racist or sexist
abuses, and other forms of local self-organisation. It must be a politics of resistance to the
state, of bombarding the state with impossible demands, of denouncing the limitations of
state mechanisms. The main argument for conducting the politics of resistance at a distance
from the state hinges on the ethical dimension of the infinitely demanding call for justice: no
state can heed this call, since its ultimate goal is the real-political one of ensuring its own
reproduction (its economic growth, public safety, etc). Of course, Critchley writes,
history is habitually written by the people with the guns and sticks and one
cannot expect to defeat them with mocking satire and feather dusters. Yet, as the

8/16/2012 12:59 PM

Slavoj iek Resistance Is Surrender: What to Do about Capitalism ...

3 of 8

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/slavoj-zizek/resistance-is-surrender

history of ultra-leftist active nihilism eloquently shows, one is lost the moment
one picks up the guns and sticks. Anarchic political resistance should not seek to
mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty it opposes.
So what should, say, the US Democrats do? Stop competing for state power and withdraw to
the interstices of the state, leaving state power to the Republicans and start a campaign of
anarchic resistance to it? And what would Critchley do if he were facing an adversary like
Hitler? Surely in such a case one should mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty one
opposes? Shouldnt the Left draw a distinction between the circumstances in which one
would resort to violence in confronting the state, and those in which all one can and should
do is use mocking satire and feather dusters? The ambiguity of Critchleys position resides in
a strange non sequitur: if the state is here to stay, if it is impossible to abolish it (or
capitalism), why retreat from it? Why not act with(in) the state? Why not accept the basic
premise of the Third Way? Why limit oneself to a politics which, as Critchley puts it, calls the
state into question and calls the established order to account, not in order to do away with the
state, desirable though that might well be in some utopian sense, but in order to better it or
attenuate its malicious effect?
These words simply demonstrate that todays liberal-democratic state and the dream of an
infinitely demanding anarchic politics exist in a relationship of mutual parasitism: anarchic
agents do the ethical thinking, and the state does the work of running and regulating society.
Critchleys anarchic ethico-political agent acts like a superego, comfortably bombarding the
state with demands; and the more the state tries to satisfy these demands, the more guilty it
is seen to be. In compliance with this logic, the anarchic agents focus their protest not on
open dictatorships, but on the hypocrisy of liberal democracies, who are accused of betraying
their own professed principles.
The big demonstrations in London and Washington against the US attack on Iraq a few years
ago offer an exemplary case of this strange symbiotic relationship between power and
resistance. Their paradoxical outcome was that both sides were satisfied. The protesters
saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear that they dont agree with the governments
policy on Iraq. Those in power calmly accepted it, even profited from it: not only did the
protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to attack Iraq; they also served to
legitimise it. Thus George Bushs reaction to mass demonstrations protesting his visit to
London, in effect: You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here
protesting against their government policy will be possible also in Iraq!
It is striking that the course on which Hugo Chvez has embarked since 2006 is the exact
opposite of the one chosen by the postmodern Left: far from resisting state power, he grabbed
it (first by an attempted coup, then democratically), ruthlessly using the Venezuelan state
apparatuses to promote his goals. Furthermore, he is militarising the barrios, and organising

8/16/2012 12:59 PM

Slavoj iek Resistance Is Surrender: What to Do about Capitalism ...

4 of 8

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/slavoj-zizek/resistance-is-surrender

the training of armed units there. And, the ultimate scare: now that he is feeling the economic
effects of capitals resistance to his rule (temporary shortages of some goods in the statesubsidised supermarkets), he has announced plans to consolidate the 24 parties that support
him into a single party. Even some of his allies are sceptical about this move: will it come at
the expense of the popular movements that have given the Venezuelan revolution its lan?
However, this choice, though risky, should be fully endorsed: the task is to make the new
party function not as a typical state socialist (or Peronist) party, but as a vehicle for the
mobilisation of new forms of politics (like the grass roots slum committees). What should we
say to someone like Chvez? No, do not grab state power, just withdraw, leave the state and
the current situation in place? Chvez is often dismissed as a clown but wouldnt such a
withdrawal just reduce him to a version of Subcomandante Marcos, whom many Mexican
leftists now refer to as Subcomediante Marcos? Today, it is the great capitalists Bill Gates,
corporate polluters, fox hunters who resist the state.
The lesson here is that the truly subversive thing is not to insist on infinite demands we
know those in power cannot fulfil. Since they know that we know it, such an infinitely
demanding attitude presents no problem for those in power: So wonderful that, with your
critical demands, you remind us what kind of world we would all like to live in.
Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where we have to make do with what is possible. The
thing to do is, on the contrary, to bombard those in power with strategically well-selected,
precise, finite demands, which cant be met with the same excuse.
[*] Verso, 168 pp., 17.99, May, 978 1 84467 121 2.
Vol. 29 No. 22 15 November 2007 Slavoj iek Resistance Is Surrender
page 7 | 1730 words

Letters
Vol. 29 No. 24 13 December 2007
From T.J. Clark
Convinced, nay, chastened by Slavoj ieks arguments for a new realism on the left, I
shall be campaigning over the next months to dissuade those planning to save their
beautiful souls in street protests against the bombing of Iran from doing any such thing
(LRB, 15 November). And I have written a letter to my congresswoman (shes a bit of an
anti-war firebrand, so iek will forgive me if my intervention fails to have immediate
results), along the lines: While respectfully recognising the US states representation of
my interests, and its right and duty to protect them by force of arms, might I propose
that you propose that the strike against Iranian facilities be limited to 50 bunker
busters per nuclear installation, with a total TNT not exceeding, say, half the Hiroshima
device per site? And could I put in a plea for restraint in the use of depleted uranium? I

8/16/2012 12:59 PM

Slavoj iek Resistance Is Surrender: What to Do about Capitalism ...

5 of 8

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/slavoj-zizek/resistance-is-surrender

realise this may be intruding too far on the administrations prerogatives, but would
you perhaps suggest, to those in the know, double-checking of intelligence before the
targets are finally decided on? Oh yes, collateral damage Couldnt we make a strictly
between presidents offer of undercover medical help, Quds force to Quds force, in the
unlikely event? These seem to me strategically well-selected, precise, finite demands.
Theyre sure to do the trick.
T.J. Clark
University of California, Berkeley
From Chris Harman
Sit at home and watch the barbarity on television seems to be Slavoj ieks new
slogan for fighting capitalism. He writes of the million-strong demonstration against
the war on Iraq: they served to legitimise it. All that happened was that the protesters
saved their beautiful souls. ieks brilliant dialectical insight allows us to see that all
struggles that do not fully achieve their objectives sanctify the status quo. So the events
of May 1968 in France must have legitimised the Gaullist regime, the Cuban revolution
continued US domination of Latin America, the independence of India the British
Empire, the revolutions of 1848 European reaction, the civil rights movement American
racism. And if the US now attacks Iran we must at all costs not take to the streets
against it. Perhaps the philosopher should go beyond interpreting the world in
confusing ways and try to change it.
Chris Harman
International Socialism Journal, London E8
From Andr Bnichou
Reading Slavoj ieks strangely giddy defence of Hugo Chvez, I was reminded of
Woody Allens Bananas, in which Allens character, a product-tester named Fielding
Melish, joins a group of guerrillas in the mountains of San Marcos, a right-wing Latin
American military dictatorship. The guerrilla leader brandishes his gun, his
revolutionary slogans and his Che beard with equal aplomb, and promises that the day
of liberation is near. Once the guerrillas triumph, he changes the official language to
Swedish and announces that everyone must wear their underpants outside their
clothes. Venezuelans arent speaking Swedish yet, but Chvezs drive to concentrate
power in his own hands brings them one step closer. I prefer the Subcomediante
Marcos.
Andr Bnichou
Nanterre, France

Vol. 30 No. 1 3 January 2008

8/16/2012 12:59 PM

Slavoj iek Resistance Is Surrender: What to Do about Capitalism ...

6 of 8

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/slavoj-zizek/resistance-is-surrender

From David Graeber


Slavoj iek is a delightful provocateur and a gifted intellectual comedian (LRB, 15
November 2007). One day hes denouncing do-gooder capitalists like George Soros by
insisting that capitalism is an irredeemable system of structural violence; the next hes
informing the left that theres no chance of ever overcoming it. One day hes embracing
Lenin as a man whose aim was to destroy all states for ever, the next hes arguing that
the state must be maintained as the only remaining bulwark against capitalism. If you
ask iek to review a book your readers are unlikely to learn much about it. Thus he
pays a good deal of attention to Simon Critchleys Infinitely Demanding, but largely for
his own purposes.
Critchley is one of the few intellectuals who have taken seriously the possibility that
those who are actively engaged in fighting capitalism might have something relevant to
say. He has tried to understand what they are attempting and to work out how the tools
at his disposal might be helpful. His book does not simply propound a Levinasian
ethics, understood as an infinite responsibility to the other, but is itself an attempt to
practise one. iek appears to object to this project on principle. When you shave away
the posturing, his real message is that intellectuals have always been, and always must
be, whores to power. He cant quite come out and say this, so he conveys it in a series of
rhetorical manoeuvres, mostly based on the use of the term we. We are intellectuals,
we are the left (since the left apparently consists primarily of intellectuals), but we
also seem to include anyone from Tony Blair and the Democratic Party in the US to the
current rulers of the Peoples Republic of China. As a result we obviously cannot stand
opposed on principle to cruise missiles and interrogation chambers because our real
brothers and sisters are not those being blown up by or strung up in them, but rather,
those pushing the buttons and calculating stress positions.
Id offer two points readers might wish to consider. First, capitalism will not be around
for ever. An engine of infinite expansion and accumulation cannot, by definition,
continue for ever in a finite world. Now that India and China are buying in as full
players, it seems reasonable to assume that within fifty years at most, the system will hit
its physical limits. Whatever we end up with at that point, it will not be a system of
infinite expansion. It will not be capitalism; it will be something else. However, there is
no guarantee that this something will be better. It might be considerably worse. Might
we not do well at least to consider what something better might be like? If nothing else
it seems an odd moment to call off all speculation about alternatives. And if one does
wish to think about alternatives to capitalism, how better to do this than to engage with
those building such alternatives in the present?
Why is Chvez the model? Why not, say, Evo Morales, who, unlike Chvez, really was
placed in power by, and remains answerable to, genuine social movements? Could we
imagine iek, even in his fantasies, patiently listening to the demands of the directly
democratic assemblies of El Alto? Chvez may be a virtuoso performer but he is also a

8/16/2012 12:59 PM

Slavoj iek Resistance Is Surrender: What to Do about Capitalism ...

7 of 8

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/slavoj-zizek/resistance-is-surrender

political comedian holding power with no real responsibility except to give his audience
pleasure.
David Graeber
Goldsmiths, University of London

Vol. 30 No. 2 24 January 2008


From Slavoj iek
My critics make the following claims (Letters, 13 December 2007): 1. that my message
to the left is that there is no chance of overcoming capitalism; all we can do is to sit at
home and watch the barbarity on television; 2. that I advocate modest realistic
demands rather than the pursuit of big impossible goals; 3. that in dismissing the
Western democratic left, I support power-mad dictators like Chvez. That such
mutually exclusive positions have been read into the same short text shows that I
touched a nerve.
It is truly weird that David Graeber thinks my real message is that intellectuals have
always been, and always must be, whores to power. On the contrary, isnt it the
advocates of resistance from the interstices of power, such as Simon Critchley, who
claim that direct engagement with power turns intellectuals into whores? In my view,
the withdrawal to such a safe moralising position is the highest form of corruption.
My opinion is that the left is not able to offer a true alternative to global capitalism. Yes,
it is true that capitalism will not be around for ever (it is the advocates of the new
politics of resistance who think that capitalism and the democratic state are here to
stay); it will not be able to cope with the antagonisms it produces. But there is a gap
between this negative insight and a basic positive vision. I do not think that todays
candidates the anti-globalisation movement etc do the job.
So what are we to do? Everything possible (and impossible), just with a proper dose of
modesty, avoiding moralising self-satisfaction. I am aware that when the left builds a
protest movement, one should not measure its success by the degree to which its
specific demands are met: more important than achieving the immediate target is the
raising of critical awareness and finding new ways to organise. However, I dont think
this holds for protests against the war in Iraq, which fitted all too smoothly the space
allotted to democratic protests by the hegemonic state and ideological order. Which is
why they did not, even minimally, scare those in power. Afterwards, both government
and protesters felt smug, as if each side had succeeded in making its point.
Slavoj iek
Birkbeck, University of London

8/16/2012 12:59 PM

Slavoj iek Resistance Is Surrender: What to Do about Capitalism ...

8 of 8

ISSN 0260-9592 Copyright LRB Ltd., 1997-2012

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/slavoj-zizek/resistance-is-surrender

^ Top

8/16/2012 12:59 PM

Anda mungkin juga menyukai