by
Slavoj Žižek
View all notes
Available query params: commented=1, untagged=1
Communism is today not the name of a solution, but the name of a problem, the problema of commons in all its dimensions--the commons of nature as the substance of our life, the problema of our biogenetic commons, the problema of our cultural commons ('intellectual property'), and, last but not least, commons as the universal space of humanity from which no one should be excluded. Whatever the solution, it will have to deal with these problems. This is why, as Alvaro Garcia Linera once put it, our horizon has to remain Communist--a horizon not as an inaccessible ideal, but as a space of ideas within which we move.
idk why he says problema
[...] The true novelty of the Syriza government is that it is a governmental event--the first time that a Western radical Left (not the old-style Communist one) has taken state power. The entire rhetoric, so beloved of the New Left, of acting at a distance from the state, has to be abandoned: one has to heroically assume full responsibility for the welfare of the entire people and leave behind the basic Leftist 'critical' attitude of finding a perverse satisfaction in providing sophisticated explanations of why things had to take a wrong turn.
[...] The point is that this dilemma is wrong: the dilemma cannot be solved at this level since the very gap between private interest (safety of my son) and global justice bears witness to a situation which has to be overcome.
great illustration of the problem with individualist thinking vs looking at the bigger picture (someone's white son is having a tough time at a majority-black school--what's the solution?)
[...] when we are deprived of universal healthcare, we are told that we are given a new freedom of choice (to choose our healthcare provider); when we can no longer rely on long-term employment and are compelled to search for a new precarious job every couple of years or maybe even every couple of weeks, we are told that we are given the opportunity to re-invent ourselves and discover our unexpected creative potential; when we have to pay for the education of our children, we are told that we become 'entrepreneurs-of-the-self', acting like a capitalist who has to choose freely how he will invest the resources he possesses (or has borrowed)--in education, health, travel. Constantly bombarded by such imposed 'free choices', forced to make decisions for which we are not even properly qualified (or do not possess enough information about), we increasingly experience our freedom as a burden that causes unbearable anxiety. Unable to break out of this vicious cycle alone, as isolated individuals, since the more we act freely, the more we get enslaved by the system, we need to be awakened from this dogmatic slumber of fake freedom by the push of a Master figure.
damn
In Part 3, we argue for three principles to guide our organizing. First, we need action. In taking action we change the world, but this struggle also changes us. Action should furthermore be a core part of what we do rather than a last resort. Second, we need to find ways to build a rank and file that keeps union bureaucracy in check, developing methods and skills to apply pressure inside unions as well as the confidence to act for ourselves. Third, enacting democracy means understanding organizing as a process. We want to win, and this necessitates having as many co-workers involved in our struggle as possible. This might mean decisions not going our way or having to learn hard lessons. Struggle is not only about winning, it is also a process that builds new leaders and a confident rank and file. It is through struggle that we become a force capable of changing the world. We also introduce the idea of workers’ inquiry. This builds upon the idea that we, as workers, are best placed to both understand and change our own work.
At the heart of it, organizing and winning is a simple game of maths. Can you apply enough pressure that maintaining the current arrangement is more costly to the employer (whether in finances, disruption or reputation) than making the change that you want? [...]
In the early 2000s in Cochabamba, Bolivia, the community struggled over their access to water. Privatization had been creeping further into public services from the 1980s, but what took place in Cochabamba was much more forceful. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were forcing changes – so-called ‘structural adjustment’ – on many countries in the Global South. Much of this was about pushing the claim that privatization is more efficient, introducing economic incentives. Despite widespread evidence that privatization has not delivered this – you only need to look at transport or healthcare in the UK, US and elsewhere – water provision was privatised in Bolivia. It is an example of ‘accumulation by dispossession’, which David Harvey identifies as a key part of neoliberalism. This is a process that involves taking wealth from the many (whether held in public institutions or public goods) and centralizing it in the hands of private interests. Put simply: it is a process of theft.
Cochabamba had been suffering from a chronic water shortage. Many people did not have access to the water network and there were many state subsidies. The Bolivian government auctioned the Cochabamba water system, with only one bidder responding – the Aguas del Tunari consortium of private and foreign interests, including the American Bechtel Corporation, won the forty-year deal for $2.5 billion. However, ‘won’ may be too strong a word, as they were not competing against anyone else. The contract gave them rights to meter the entire water network, including all water in the districts and aquifers. The deal also guaranteed the consortium a 15 per cent annual return on investment. They had been given this legal right to expropriate water after the Bolivian parliament rushed through new legislation.8
While unions come in all shapes and sizes, there are distinctions that are useful to make. There are, broadly speaking, four kinds of unions. First, craft unions. These organize with workers based on the skill involved or the kind of work they do – for example, carpenters being part of a woodworkers’ union. Craft unions may organize workers across different industries but tend to be smaller and concerned with setting boundaries around who can do their kind of work. Controlling this can be part of developing bargaining power. It also means they might work alongside workers who are not eligible to join the same union. Second, industrial unions organize with workers across one industry, regardless of the level or job of the worker. The strength of this model comes from the ability to strike to shut down the whole supply chain. The IWW is one example of radical industrial unionism. While they accept all members, they focus on organizing whole industries, like factories, mining, utilities and transportation. Third, professional unions are like craft unions, but they have grown in so-called white-collar professions. For example, academic workers in the UCU (University and College Union) in the UK is only open to academic or academic-related workers in universities and colleges, not to the wider workforce. Fourth are the general unions that recruit workers from any industry or sector. Most unions today are closer to this kind of model, and many of them are the result of mergers. For example, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) in the US or Unite in the UK. These unions can grow to be very large, with many having membership in the millions. They may have a blend of craft, professional and industrial unionism within them, depending on their history.
[...] according to the company, its drivers are not workers atall - they are"consumers" of Uber's technology serivces, just as passengersare. [...] Uber's lawyers exlained thatthe company's drivers are actually customers of its software. "Fundamentally, the commercial relationship between these drivers and transportation providers andUberisonewhere they are ourcustomer, where we licenseto them oursoftware, and we receive a fee for doing that." [...]
we all know this but worth remembering. can any company argue this? why is uber special? surely the category of worker as a protected categoryunder the law was due to necessity
[...] Uber's employment model was born in the so-called sharing economy, a social technology movement that capitalized on the economicinstablity of the Great Recession to sell a narrative. [...]
i do like this definition