Preeminent Philosopher Slavoj Žižek speaks @ #Occupy Wall Street

"We are called losers, but the true losers are down there on Wall Street. They were bailed out by billions of our [dollars]. We are called socialists, but here there is already socialism for the rich. They say we don’t respect private property, but in the 2008 financial crash, more hard-earned private property was destroyed than if we were here destroying it, night and day for weeks. We are called dreamers, but the true dreamers are those who think that things can go on the way they are. We are not dreamers; we are awakening from a dream that is turning into a nightmare. We are not destroying anything; we are only witnessing how the system is destroying itself. We all know the classic scene from cartoons: The cat reaches a precipice, but it goes on walking, not realizing that there is nothing beneath it.... Only when it looks down and notices it, it falls down. This is what we are doing here: We are telling the guys there on Wall Street, 'Hey, look down.' In April 2011 the Chinese government prohibited, in all TV, films, and novels, all stories that contained alternate realities or time-travel. This is a good sign for China; it means that people still dream about alternatives, so [they] have to prohibit this dreaming. Here we don’t need the prohibition because the ruling [class] has oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time: It’s easy to imagine the end of the world, an asteroid destroying all life, and so on, but you cannot imagine the end of capitalism. So what are we doing here? Let me tell you a wonderful old joke from communist times:

A guy was sent from East Germany to work in Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors, so he told his friends, 'let’s establish a code,' if a letter is written in blue ink, it is true what I said, if it is written in red ink, it is false. After a month, his friends get a first letter; everything is in blue. It says, this letter, 'Everything is wonderful here. Stores are full of good food, movie theaters show films from the West, apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot buy is red ink.'

This is how we live. We have all the freedoms we want. But what we are missing is ‘red ink,’ the language to articulate our non-freedom. The way we are taught to speak about freedom, 'war on terror,' and so on, falsifies ‘freedom.’ And this is what you are doing here. You are giving us red ink.

Do us a favor. Don’t fall in love with yourself. We have 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? I don’t want you to remember these days, you know like, 'oh we were young, it was beautiful.' Remember that our basic message is, 'We are allowed to think about alternatives. If the [system] is broken. We do not live in the best possible world.' But, there is a long road. There are truly difficult questions that confront us. We know what we do not want. But, what do we want? What social organization can replace Capitalism? What type of new leaders do we want? Remember, the problem is not corruption or greed; the problem is the system that forces us to be corrupt. Beware not only of the enemies, but also of false friends who are already working to dilute this problem. In the same way you get coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, ice-cream without fat, they will try to make this into a harmless moral protest: A decaffeinated process. But, the reason we are here is that we’ve had enough of a world where we recycle coke-cans to give a couple of dollars for charity or to buy a Starbucks cappuccino, where 1% goes to third-world starving children is enough to make us feel good. After outsourcing work and torture… we can see that for a long time, we allowed our political engagement also to outsourced. We want it back. We are not communists, if communism means the system that collapsed in 1990. Remember that today, those communists [were] the most efficient, ruthless capitalists. In China today, we have capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American capitalism, but it doesn’t need democracy, which means, when you politicize capitalism, don’t allow yourself to be blackmailed, because you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over. The change is possible.

What do we consider today as possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand, in technology and sexuality, everything seems possible. You can travel to the moon, you can become immortal by biogenetics, you can have sex with animals or whatever, but look at the field of society and economy. There almost anything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes a little for the rich, they tell you it’s impossible. We lose competitivity. You want more money for healthcare, they tell you it’s impossible, this means totalitarian state. Isn’t [there] something wrong in the world where you are promised to be immortal, but cannot spend a little more for healthcare. Maybe we want to set our priorities straight here."

Role of State

JR: "Public infrastructure, protection of the state’s borders, maintenance of commerce"

Each of these benefits individuals, at least in theory. That the state does not provide services for individuals as well as protect the rights of individuals is going to be tough to argue.

JR: "If you require the state to improve the conditions of the individual then this is done at the expense of others. So by its very essence you are taking from one, to provide for another."

This is not only a principle of economics, but of nature.

Every time we eat something, we are taking energy from one to provide for our self. All living organisms are taking from someone or something else to provide for themselves or, “By [their] very essence… taking from one, to provide for another."

It could be argued eating is not immoral because the sources we draw from for food aren't persons and it would be immoral only to take from rational beings. But it seems like the Mesoamerican and Native American cultures did appreciate this and find ways to reconcile selfishly taking from nature to support their own existence. But, even if it’s the case that moral status applies only to rational beings, any acts of usury, profit seeking, and alas, the principles of capitalism itself would be inherently immoral. Maybe they are. But, I would argue that taking from one to provide for another isn't inherently immoral because it’s a necessary and integral aspect of nature, and it is especially not immoral in cases where one has a surplus while the other has a scarcity. That might not be applicable in all situations, but generally, I believe rule to be morally superior to one that allows for coercive competition and a common disregard for others in disadvantaged positions.

I appreciate what Valadez says in his Pre-Columbian Philosophical Perspectives about the Western ideas of the right private property in contrast with Pre-Columbian values: “…Western culture has elevated the individual's right to own private property into a fundamental human right. We see this ‘right’ as so basic we consider it more important than the right of an individual to have enough to eat or have adequate shelter” (p108).

JR: "Ensuring an individual the freedom to improve their situation, is different that a responsibility to improve those conditions."

Agreed. But, I don't see any moral problem with the state, or organizations, or people supporting individuals in their ability to self-actualize.

"Take for example affirmative action. There is a difference in a state saying that all classes of people have a right to jobs that they qualify for that job, and a state that reserves or requires certain numbers of a class to participate in a profession. A state that is actively engaged in such a practice is limiting the freedoms of some and giving preferential treatment to others."

Agreed, but these states are doing so in response to centuries of prejudice and the limitation of the freedoms of these same people to which they are giving preferential treatment—demographics of people who, for the most part, have historically been denied those opportunities and privileges. It ensures what a negative (freedom-from) approach would not necessarily ensure.

Maximizing a person's freedom might mean reducing another’s if the two interfere, just like increasing one person's wealth--wealth requiring a source--may be a product of reducing another's.

Egalitarian initiatives are basically attempts to equalize freedom, which in some cases requires limiting individuals and organizations in their ability to limit the freedoms of other individuals. Even stating it this way could be considered simply a protection of negative liberty, and not really directly "improving conditions for individuals." Some egalitarian initiatives might also attempt to encourage or support individuals in achieving certain goals, like Affirmative Action, and could be considered initiatives that support positive liberty—where the state is actually providing an opportunity rather than protecting it.