*This transcript is made by collaboration of Ollie, red0box, thepauloapo and BeneVerba

From the Middle East to the streets of London and in the American cities [there is] a discontent with the status quo. Whether it is with the iron grip of entrenched governments or the widening economic divide between the rich and those struggling to get by. But where are those so hungry for change heading? How profound is their long-term vision to transform society?

"The system has lost its self-evidence, its automatic legitimacy, and now the field is open."

The concerns of Slovenian-born philosopher Slavoj Zizek, whose critical examination of both capitalism and socialism has made him an internationally recognised intellectual, popular among the New York occupiers, here in New York for example.

Talk to Al Jazeera sat down with Slavoj Zizek, and we begun by asking him about the violent riots' the summer in London and whether the protesters there had a political agenda.

Slavoj Zizek:
The way the protests looked, the way they acted there -- repeatedly I spoke with participants there, with people who saw -- this is no -- they're on the streets there are no demands, they're not able to formulate the cause, which could be an utopian communist, which could be a religious. But just pure violence and the only cause of, however you call it, agenda is imitate consumerism. That's very sad.

Tom Ackerman:
-- Here in United States, do you see any kind of a coherent ideological demand?

Don't blame them. Listen. I am not an even Communist. I'm the first to say. This really made me many enemies when I said. Let's face it. 20th century communism was precisely -- because it started such hopes and ended in a nightmare -- was maybe the greatest catastrophe, ethical catastrophe almost attempted, to say, in the history of humanity. More than fascism.

You know why because the reason is very simple. In fascism, we have bad guys who said all program is to do this, to do bad things, no?, and what a surprise they took power then did bad things! No? In communism, you have authentic tragedy, which is why you have dissidents and you have always inner struggles. So -- But nonetheless it is over.

What does this means? This means that: Let's not the bluff. We see the limitation of existing systems. I stand here at my basic position.

Which is -- When people say "Oh, You're utopian," sorry, only true utopia for me is that things can go on indefinitely the way they are. You know the way look of the begining of 2008 financial breakdown. "OK, our legislation consulting banks was not good enough. We change that better a little bit. Everything could be OK." No, it's not.

So, something we have to be done. But let's face it openly. The tragedy is that: I don't know, we don't know, what effective form can replace capitalism-democratic systems the way we have it now.

Now I will quote someone whom I'm of course totally opposed politically. But sometimes she's not stupid. Hannah Arendt, you know. At last her work[?], when in her ridiculous Human to Money, she says: Money is in the way a means of liberality. In the sense of we have to divide things, exchange and so on. She says: money means we can do it peacefully. I pay you, you sell it to me if you want to. If not money then there has to be a some kind of direct domination and brutal extortion whatever. I don't agee with her here.

But doesn't feel it heared here. A point, in the sense of big experience of 20th century communism, they wanted to abolish market, money, and direct brutal dominations must have got returned with vengeance.

-- I've read what you said. What you said is fascism is the left if that means necessary, so bit right? What do you mean fascism is the left?

It was to provoke my liberal friends who are -- I'd like, you know, to provoke. There are much worse things what I said. For example, I said, "If we gave almost a half of the Turk..."

-- We don't take you literally, what was you saying?

Why not? Because you know, the problem is the problem of violence. Of course, I oppose to the violence. When by in it we mean killing, torturing people and so on. But for me, true violence which I support is not physical violence. But violence when you say, like the violence of Egyptian demonstration on Tahrir Square. They weren't violent in the formal sense. They didn't just shoot and so on. They wanted the whole system to stop functioning.

This is my famous statement, written to block me from so many enemies. The first part is: The problem of Hitler is he was violent enough. But then [in] the second part: in sense which Gandhi was more violent than Hitler. Hitler's all violence was to make the system work. Gandhi wanted to stop it.

So, this is for me, the problem is this obsession with the demonization of violence. Of course, it is to be demonized, violence. But before doing that we should also see all the forms of violence, which is to see violence which is invisible. Not because -- I'm not paranoia -- because some bad media controll by don't-know[?] forms prevent us to think it.

Just think, for example -- You want to talk about violence? Talk about Republic of Congo today! Millions dying, the full state doesn't function, warlords dominate, you have drugs, child warriors and so on. This is the violence which we don't notice too much because it's part of the system. So, all I'm saying is let's extend our notion of violence.

The same things I wrote about in the Guardian, a British daily newspaper, about West Bank. Okay, I unambiguously condemn violence, violence of Palestinians, or whichever -- terrorism there. But, my point was what happens there when nothing happens. Nothing big for the media. No one is killed, blah blah. This everyday suffocating bureaucratic occupation of Israel. You know, poisoning wells, burning trees, slowly pushing Palestinian south. This is the reality. Without getting this background, you don't get a whole picture.

-- You're not talking about any ideological solution to, for example, the real Palestinian conflict, are you?

What do you mean by the ideological solution?

-- Well, you're talking about when things don't change there it's regarded as a norm.

Yeah, in which you see the violence is the normal state.

-- Is there an ideological approach to responding rather than looks to everyone as a nationalistic or maybe a religious conflict?

You know, whole problem here is what does the term ideology means. For me, ideology is present more and more a rebel of daily lives. We live in a very strange era, well, at least in the West. People think they're outside ideology. Like take every its people today.

What is the implicit injunction that you get from society in the U.K. or whatever. It's not "Sacrifice yourself for a big cause." It's something like "Be true to yourself", "Have a full life", "Realise your potential." It's a kind of a what I call spiritualized hedonism. So, people don't think the experience it as ideology.

But I think we are in the ideology, precisely. Because the ideology is for me the way you see things and you don't see things, so that you can function our the daily lives. For example, the fact we cannot imagine change means ideology.

I'll give you another example. Did you notice how today problems of racism and sexism -- which are very real problems -- are automatically translated into problems of tolerance? This is the ideology. Look at Martin Luther King. He never practically mentioned the tolerance. For him, the problem was not "Oh, whites should more tolerate us blacks." The problems are what economical exploitation, legalized everyday racism and so on. To percieve this problem is the problem of tolerance.

You already accept a certain vision of society where, you know, there are almost naturalised cultural differences and we should learn to tolerate each other and so on and so on. Politics problems disappear here.

-- Do you see anywhere in the world where -- that a concept of the left is trying to actualise that?

Thing are slowly happening, I mean. But, our media are here not covering it enough. For example, I was surprised just they how the media cover India and China. China is a bad guy. Everybody knows bad communism, censorship and so on. Terrorizing Tibet. But do you know that India from time to time you get a note? But it's not reported enough.

You have a meager Maoist naturally to rebellion. According to the most of the estimates, we are talking about, "OK, India is a big partner. It's nonetheless a number even for India." Over one million are the rebels. Horrible things are happening well. Indian new capitalism is trying to extend into this tribal area to get access to mine. We simply don't see. So, there is a rebellion there.

There are things happening now even in Europe. Things are very serious. It's not just see these superficial things: "will Greece pays it debt or not?" It's basicaly to put it in one of possible ways. First it is that Europe -- I like quote this metaphor, you know Sigmund Freud when he was old as this ridiculous naive question, "Was will das Weib?" -- What does a woman want? I claim that today the problem is: What does the Europe want? Europe cannot decide. On the one hand, we have this pure technocratic Brussels vision: We should just organize ourself with regard to global market to be competitive.

Then we have this nationalist anti-immigrant movements is very sad this is the only alternative. I think that today world is asking for a real alternative. Look, what do you like, I wouldn't live in a world where only alternative is either Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism or Chinese-Singaporean, poetically call it, capitalism with Asian values, which means authoritarian capitalism, which is now even more effective than western liberal capitalism. So, something will have to be done. That's tragedy of Europe, the first one.

Second one. I'm such a pessimist unfortunately in Europe. How Europe is regressing. Look one incident. You know that European Union basically didn't want to allow in Turkey for not being democratic enough or whatever.

-- On a being Islamic, too Islamic.

Yeah. But, let me tell you something. Do you notice it? This summer there was in Istanbul a big gay parade. Ten thousands of homosexual demonstrating. No incidents!

Try to do this in a post-communist East European country which is a part in European Union. There was recently in split, the Southern Croation city. A gay parade, you know how it looked. Seven hundred gays protected by two thousand policemen protecting them from ten thousand local people trying to lynch them and so on.

I mean, this -- So, I am saying to provoke my friends. Another my provocations: Yes, I agree with right-wingers. European legacy, Judeo-Christian legacy is in danger. But they, false protectors of Europe against Islam and so on, they are the danger. I don't fear Muslims in Europe. I fear protectors of Europe. Even my Jewish friends, I'm telling them. Beware! Are you aware what is happening?

Did you notice this something about this Breivik, a guy who went on a shooting spree in Norway. He is the clear case of something which is emerging now. Something paradoxical. I mean literally. Anti-Semitic Zionist.

On the one hand, he is clearly anti-Semitic. He says, "In Western Europe, except England, it's OK. We don't have too many Jews, so we can manage it." He said, "England, especially in the United States, too many Jews there." So, the standard nation-state vision: Jews are okay if they are negligable, if too much, blah blah.

At the same time, he is absolutely pro-Israel, pro-Zionist. Now, you will see this is a lone mad man, ha-ha. I think this is the basic attitude of American conservative Christian fundamentalists.

You remember the scandal at Fox News, Glenn Beck. He was fired for anti-Semitic marks. But at the same time, he was absolutely pro-Zionist. And this for me is the nightmare.

Are the representative of the state of Israel aware what they are doing? They basically sold their soul to the devils. By this, I mean this: They made a deal with these political forces in the West who are almost I would say, by definition, anti-Semitic.

Telling them, you can play your racial games there, just allow us to do the same with the Palestinian here. I really worry about the Jewish here. Jews are the great nation. Zionist politics is turning them just into another narrow land-graving nation.

The true victims of Middle-East conflict, this catastrophic politics, will be in any case, I claim, Jews themself. They will lose their uniqueness and greatness.

-- What point do you think or what point would you notice that there was some glimmer of real change, revolutionary change, anywhere in the world then? Because you are mentioning the fact that the left really hasn't got a global remedy or a global approach to deal with a lot of these problems. Where would you see glimmers of some kind of the changes there?

I think there already what is happening now is the reason for the modest optimism. Don't expect miracles in the sense of all of a sudden there will be magical solution. The beginning is simply that people should become aware that difficulties we are confronting are not just difficulties caused by bad greedy guys in an otherwise good system. But we have to ask certain questions about the system as such.

This awareness is rising. This is what all the protests are here about. I think that at this stage, what is again important, it's not so much to offer fast solutions. But to break this, I call it ironically "Fukuyama Taboo."

OK, I mean, he's not the idiot like a -- We all were till now Fukuyamaists. Even radical leftists. We're not thinking about what can replace the capitalism or our state they were demanding, you know, more social justice, more rights for women, within the system.

Time has come to raise this more fundamental questions. The system has lost its self-evidence, its automatic legitimacy, and now the field is open. This is a very important achievment.

-- But if the field is open, who's gonna fill the vacuum? Is gonna be somebody from above?

There is always a danger. I totally agree with you. Let's not forget that we know where who fill in the opening in 1930s in Europe and so on. No? This brings its own risks. But nonetheless we have to take a chance.

Why? Because, we see it more and more through series of phenomenon like economic crisis becoming a kind of a permanent emergency state. Then, I think a phenomenon which we should be very attentive to how even if worldwide economy is to somehow progressing.

But there are -- This is a nice paradox. Berlin Walls fell, but there are new walls, new divisions, rising up everywhere. Within most of the states, you have stronger divisions, not just between simply rich and poor.

But like in, for example, Latin America. People there who live in favelas or slums or elsewhere are not simply poor. It's something much more radical. They're simply excluded from public space and political engagement and so on and so on.

So, again, it's not the question of shall we take the risk or not. The opening is in the way imposed on us. Let's my answer to those who tell me, "Why don't you just keep quiet and we silently go on the way it is?"

I claim if we do nothing we will gradually approach a kind of a new, it will not be old fascism, we have to be very specific here, a new type of authoritarian society. Here I see the world historical importance of what is happening today in China.

Till now, let's be frank, there was one good argument for capitalism: sooner or later it brought a demand for democracy. You can have dictatorship for twenty years [in] South Korea or Chile even. But, what I'm afraid of is with this capitalism with Asian values, Singapore and China.

We get a capitalism much more efficient, dynamic than, it looks so at least, our western capitalism. But I don't share the hope of my liberal friends -- like, give them ten years, [there will be an] another Tiananmen Square demonstration - No, the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over.

-- OK. So, if China is not a good example of the way you see this, breaking open, is there anywhere else? Because you're talking about a -- your complaint is in all these case that consumerism is a driving force of the ambition and the discontent. Do you see any place where you can get be honored?

Again, even in China, you have attempted to organize civil societies, in the sense of social movements like for ecology, for workers' rights and so on. I think especially in China, for example, this may be even more important than sometime of Western democracy.

At low-level incredible things are happening in China. You know what can give you a hint of the explosion situation in China. Do you remember at the last session of their rubber stamp parliament?

Everyone expected they would redouble their defense budget. No, they redoubled the budget for internal security. China is now the only big country which spends more for internal security than for the army. So again. There are protests there. There are ---

This ArabSpring. You know why I liked it so much? Because we in the West are as we always are -- but we are not worse than others, I'm getting [to be] a universal pessimist -- spontaneous racists, you know? The cliché was: "Oh, with the Arabs, all you can get if you want to mobilise people is kind of a racist, anti-Semitic, nationalist or religious fundamentalist movement. You cannot get a nice secular movement for democratic opening." Well, we got exactly that!

Now comes the crucial part. What happens after. This is the saddest thing. I pray it will not happen. But some signs do point out in this sad directions that, maybe, I hope not, maybe final outcome will be a kind of a perverse pact between Muslim Brotherhood and the army.

To put it in very simplified terms, Muslim Brotherhood gets much stronger ideological roll-controlling schools, but the army gets, in exchange for, it keeps all its privileges and corruptions and so on and so on.

But nonetheless, again things are happening. All if you take it in Europe. In Europe, people first thought made fun of Greece, "Oh, Greece, those lazy primitive Mediterranean people." No, you have Spain, you have England, it will spread, I claim. And as you said, I agree, this is crucial.

The battle is not will things go on or will there be a revolution. What we should do is to fight the most difficult struggle who will appropriate the energy of protest. Look, even here in the United States there is a great energy of protest. But till now, it was appropriated by hip[?] artist.

Are they aware how if you look at how they formulate their stuff. Hip artists look like workers' protests fifty years ago. You know, if you're listen their songs, I listened to one pop singer who supports Tea Party. He says, "We're ordinary working people exploited. Bad people in Washington and Wall Street exploit us" and so on and so on.

Here it will be the struggle. And it's a tough struggle. I have no illusion. There are great dangers. But, you know what the Chinese says, "When they really hate you may you leave in interesting times." We are certainly approaching the interesting times.

-- Thank you very much for speaking with us.

My good! Thank you.

Thanks to My Collaborators:
  • Thanks to Ollie, for your kindness. If you didn't decide to work with me, nobody will appear to.
  • Thanks to red0box, for bringing a key to the completion.
  • Thanks to thepauloapo, for taking me up to the next step.

by BeneVerba | 2011-11-07 19:01 | 書き起こし | Trackback | Comments(31)
Message from Chinese activists and academics in support of Occupy Wall Street
2011年10月1日 - 「ウォール街を占拠せよ」を支持する中国の活動家と学者たち


 「ウォール街革命」の勃発は、民衆による民主主義(popular democracy)革命が世界を席巻する歴史的指標となるものである。この運動は特別に重要な意味と役割を持っている。これ以前にはストリートの革命は、専らアメリカのエリート集団が他国の政権を転覆するための道具として使われていた。しかし現在、「ウォール街革命」は、――その目標である分かち合いの繁栄と民衆による民主主義とともに――民主主義の擁護者をもって任ずる国家において、抗議運動を開始したのだ。これは必ずしや、世界各国の民衆への掠奪と抑圧に対して責任があり、世界を危機と不安定性に押しやった張本人である、アメリカのエリート集団にとって痛恨の一撃となるであろう。この抗議運動こそは、資本の支配に対して弔鐘を鳴らすものである。二十一世紀には、民衆による民主主義がエリートによる民主主義に取って代わるだろう。エリートによる民主主義から民衆による民主主義への交代を告げる幕は切って落とされたのだ。「ウォール街革命」という言葉を用いるのは、これが民衆である99%と腐敗した1%の間の闘争だからだ。1%のエリート階級に対する99%の民衆の闘争だからだ。そして、これは資本主義のエリート支配層に対する民衆の最終的な闘争なのだ。












1. 马宾(中共老一辈无产阶级革命家,对鞍钢宪法有重要贡献)
2. 张宏良(北京学者)
3. 孔庆东(北京学者)
4. 张勤德(中共中央某机关退休干部)
5. 司马南(北京资深主持人)
6. 左大培(北京学者)
7. 苏铁山(北京学者)
8. 贾根良(北京学者)
9. 韩德强(北京学者)
10. 韩中(电视剧《毛岸英》中饰演毛泽东主席的演员)
11. 刘毅然(电视剧《毛岸英》导演)
12. 顾秀林(昆明学者)
13. 赵磊(成都学者)
14. 刘长明(济南学者)
15. 孙锡良(长沙学者)
16. 郭松民(北京学者)
17. 杨思远(北京学者)
18. 徐亮(北京学者)
19. 范景刚(北京左翼网站乌有之乡网站负责人www.wyzxsx.com)
20. 吴国屏(江苏无锡红色文化大讲堂负责人)
21. 戴诚(江苏常州红色合唱团负责人)
22. 葛黎英(郑州红色事业活动志愿者)
23. 任羊成(河南林州,修建红旗渠的特等劳模)
24. 袁金萍(河南安阳,林州市红旗渠精神学习会理事)
25. 赵东民(西安红色法律工作者)
26. 桑文英(西安红歌会负责人)
27. 李忠(太原红色事业活动志愿者)
28. 聂晓萍(北京老中医)
29. 吴泽刚(四川理县,藏族农民,中共党员)
30. 苏群(深圳红歌会志愿者)
31. 朱超(重庆红色事业活动志愿者)
32. 刁伟铭(上海红色事业活动志愿者)
33. 李欣(天津红色事业活动志愿者)
34. 曹文质(北京景山红歌会负责人)
35. 吴凤藻(北京首钢退休干部)
36. 薛云(北京红色企业家,点石金校校长)
37. 杨晓陆(北京反转志愿者)
38. 马婷娜(北京反转志愿者)
39. 吕霙(北京,退休科技工作者,当年红卫兵)
40. 刘英(广西桂林学者)
41. 陈红兵 (郑州当年红卫兵)
42. 石恒利(辽宁社科院退休研究员)
43. 熊 炬(男,中共党员,诗人,作家,重庆出版社退休干部)
44. 谢明康(男,中共党员,重庆市垫江县城乡建委退休干部)
45. 邬碧海(女,浙江红色事业活动志愿者)
46. 王庆人(天津学者,南开大学教授)
47. 司马平邦(中国名博沙龙常务副主席)
48. 王左军(资深媒体人士、绿色环保人士)
49. 曾有灿(工程师)
50. 陈晶(北京红色事业活动志愿者)




 これらの人々について、訳者は解説する言葉を持たない。『China Study Group』において、英訳を投稿したjj氏によれば、おそらく元革命家で元高級経済官僚の马宾(Ma Bing)氏と、北京の大学教授でインターネットの扇動家の张宏良(Zhang Hongliang)氏が書いたものだろうと、また左派ナショナリストのマオイズムの影があると言っているようだ。




 訳語で一番悩んだのは、中国語原文にある「大众民主革命」、英訳にある「popular democracy」だが、他に適切な言葉が見つからず、今回の見直しでも「民衆による民主主義革命」のままとした。なお、この言葉は、社会主義革命との対比で捉えるよりも、直接民主主義と密接に関連する言葉だと捉える方がふさわしいと考えている。

 また、この機会にこの文章にある「報道管制(blackout)」について触れておきたい。それなりに「ウォール街を占拠せよ」運動に関する報道がなされている現在では、ひょっとして奇妙に響くかもしれないが、確かに一時期までは、そう読んでさしつかえないような状況があった。「占拠せよ」運動の参加者たちが盛んにそう言っていたし、またアルジャジーラ英語版にも「'Occupy Wall Street': A media blackout?」という記事があることでもそれは理解できると思う。

by BeneVerba | 2011-11-07 14:00 | 翻訳 | Trackback | Comments(0)