Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: Occupy’s Meme Warrior

  1. #1

    Occupy’s Meme Warrior

    Last July, Adbusters sent out this invitation addressed to those "ready for a Tahrir moment": "On Sept. 17, flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street." And thus, the Vancouver-based nonprofit magazine published by self-described "culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power and the way meaning is produced in our society" sparked a movement.
    Estonian-born documentary filmmaker Kalle Lasn co-founded Adbusters in 1989. Lasn, 70-years-young ("old," as in "old Left," is an adjective he eschews), draws his inspiration from the Situationists, avant-garde European revolutionaries who believed corporate capitalism perverted the human spirit. The Situationists reached their zenith in 1968 Paris and disbanded in 1972, but their efforts to affirm what it means to be free live on in Adbusters.
    In These Times spoke with Lasn in March to see what "the man behind the curtain" had to say for himself and the movement he helped ignite.
    What challenges does the Occupy movement face?
    It is a replay of what happened in 1968 when an insurrection in the Latin Quarter of Paris exploded onto campuses and cities around the world. For a few brief moments it looked like the first global revolution. Occupy is round two of 1968. Young people around the world have this sinking feeling that the next 30, 40 or 50 years of their lives will be one big black hole of ecological and political and financial and personal crisis. And if you are facing that sort of prospect you realize that unless you stand up and fight for a different kind of future, you don't have a future. Unlike 1968, it is going to have legs.
    We on the Left have become an ineffective, whiny, complaining, finger-pointing kind of movement that hasn't had a new out-of-the-box idea for a couple of generations. Everything we've tried, including the Battle of Seattle and all sorts of anti-globalization movements, has fizzled out.
    A power struggle is going on in the movement, between the old vertical type of a Left and a new young Left that has social media at its finger tips and isn't so enamored with the old wolf pack mentality but is ready to do things in a much more horizontal way without leaders -- sometimes even without demands. The question is: In this tussle between the old Left and the new Left, who will win? And if temporarily the old Left triumphs then we're in for a hard year this year and possibly even next, but bit by bit this movement does herald a new Left. This movement has made the Left cool again.
    How does one build counter-hegemonic power and get beyond "crowd sourcing," which is really what the Occupy general assemblies are?
    In the next few years there will be what I call a "meme war" -- a war of really big ideas within economics. Will we be able to pull off a paradigm shift from neoclassical economics to this new ecological or bionomic or psychonomic discipline that is bubbling underneath the surface? Will we be able to change our current dysfunctional marketplace into one in which the price of every product tells the ecological truth? Will we be able to impose Robin Hood taxes and dismantle this global casino with more than $1 trillion a day flushing around the system in derivatives and credit default swaps and other financial instruments?
    If we on the Left try to figure out what these meta memes are and start fighting for them, then we will get somewhere. If we fall back on the old ways of doing things, then capitalism is going to swallow us whole.
    Where does power over the distribution of societal resources fit into this equation? How is the Occupy movement going to redistribute wealth from the 1% to the 99%?
    Quite frankly, the question you ask betrays the fact that you are quoting the old Left. The way to fix the problem may not actually be a straightforward approach of passing some laws and taking some money from the 1% and giving it to the 99%. Maybe we have to have a more sophisticated approach where we don't play out this kind of class warfare idea. The change has to be deeper. If we can finally ram through this Robin Hood tax, which a lot of people are for in Europe, and make it very high, not just a .01% but a 1% tax on all financial transactions, then that will be a deep-down transformation of casino capitalism, and all of a sudden the Robin Hood tax would collect trillions of dollars every year and then we the people of the world could start arguing over how to spend that money.
    Isn't the legislative process needed to enact or "ram through" redistributive policies like the Robin Hood tax?
    Once you do that, you're accepting the status quo. Maybe the real job is to launch a third political party in America that is initiated on the Internet, gets million of signatures, and then has a convention. Maybe the task of changing the political landscape of America with a third party is a way smarter move than what the Tea Party did with the Republicans, and what so many people are saying we should do with the Democrats. The trick for the political Left is to think deeper. Instead of thinking, "Hey, let's pass a law that legislates the Robin Hood tax," let's change the political landscape.
    Take, for example, the idea we launched last year. In the general assemblies we have a microcosm of a democratic process that's magical and beautiful. It works and this is a metaphor for how America should work.
    Eventually, I agree, we will have to pass laws and do all that stuff you are talking about, but there is a lot of deep-down rabble-rousing that needs to happen before we get to that point.
    Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has said: "Simply being in a public place and voicing your opinion in and of itself doesn't do anything politically. ... I don't know what the voting behavior of all these people is but I'm a little unhappy when people who don't vote, who didn't vote last time, blame me for the consequences of not voting." Is this an argument for the Occupy movement to enter the electoral system?
    It reminds me of an old adage: If you're a carpenter, you see everything as a nail and a hammer. Barney Frank has done some good things with legislation. But he is blind, as are so many other Americans, including the Tea Partiers and most of the people in Congress and most of the people on the Left, as to how change ultimately happens. Change finds its bed within a culture with big ideas that resonate with people. There has to be a sort of mystery and magic to the whole thing and so far the Occupy movement has been very good at operating on that deeper level. Somewhere along the line we will have to pass laws and we will need Barney Franks. But there are a lot of meta memes that we have to conjure up, and a lot of strategy that we have to perfect, and there are millions more young people that we have to inspire and recruit into our movement before we simplify the whole process into a cut-and-dry passing of a law.
    The Occupy movement has been committed to developing actions and strategies through consensus. How do the "tactical briefings" issued by Adbusters fit into that process?
    This tussle over what we should do next is something we should all get involved in. When we put out that call [in the January 25 "Tactical Briefing #25"] for 50,000 people to descend on Chicago [on May 1, ahead of the NATO summit], people in Chicago said, "You haven't been talking to us. How dare you do this. You haven't been part of our meetings." I say, "To hell with them." We want to put out a tactical briefing, and you can take it or leave it.
    Adbusters' mission statement says that you want to change "the way meaning is produced." What does that mean?
    At the moment, meaning is produced by a commercialized mass media that is mixing communications with commercialism and mind-fucking us all and not giving us the information we need to make wise decisions about the future. The political Left has been pretty lousy at creating that kind of deep-down meaning, of having narratives that inspire young people. The future is a meme war and the winners will be the people who know how to create the meaning.



    More...

  2. #2
    The political Left has been pretty lousy at creating that kind of deep-down meaning, of having narratives that inspire young people. The future is a meme war and the winners will be the people who know how to create the meaning.
    Jesus, this old fart is the embodiment of chaos. He either has no idea what he is talking about, or ... no I will stick with that. My bolding in the quotation is to point out that this "old left" guy has become what he is against. How does this statement differ, essentially, from what Karl Rove and the Bush-boys said about "reality"? It is the same thing. This Lasn's "mem war" has already been lost and he doesn't even know it. The capitalist own "personal media" and everything that entails. That these tweet warriors (twit warriors) don't seem to grasp this is just sad.

    We no longer have any time for this shit. Why can't any of these tweet-types grasp that this kind of unorganized, "horizontal" "movements" can only exist (let alone prosper) with the collusion of the very forces they claim to oppose? When the army comes out in Egypt, and the US back it, the tweet-war will end. When the "99% Movement" holds its protests, it will do so with the blessing of the capitalists that they oppose. They will be allowed to do whatever they do and will not even attempt to do what is not allowed.

    This is, especially in light of developments in Greece, becoming sadder and sadder...
    "The present status of society is but the result of the struggle of humankind during this and preceding periods - yes, struggle! "You cannot reform society by the sprinkling of rose oil" said Mirabeau, and history proves the correctness of this statement. In no age did the rulers and despoilers of our race relinquish their hold upon the throat of their victims, unless forced to - by logic and argument? No...Blood, the precious sap was ever the price of liberty." August Spies, 1886

  3. #3
    I was wanting some satire and low and behold! OK, which one of youse guys wrote this? It is brilliant satire, Swift should be ashamed.

    Where to begin? No organization, no demands, no class war, essentially no nothing. Certainly no Marx or commies, not even a lame ass reference to democratic socialism. But we got "really big ideas", shit, we got 'meta memes'! And that 1% tax on financial transactions will show 'em who's boss! Priceless.

    What, it's not satire?

    Ride that motherfucker outta town on a rail.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    also,
    It reminds me of an old adage: If you're a carpenter, you see everything as a nail and a hammer.
    i don't think this guy has ever done carpentry!

  6. #6
    How does one build counter-hegemonic power

    Ahhh, every political text that respects itself should include this word
    'Order reigns in Berlin!' You stupid henchmen! Your 'order' is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will already 'raise itself with a rattle' and announce with fanfare, to your terror: I was, I am, I will be!

    Rosa Luxemburg

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by brother cakes View Post
    Yeah the Situationist thing at the beginning was kind of a tip off. Because no one from that movement was a giant flaming douche or anything..

  8. #8
    Despite its overuse and/or abuse by various theoretical schools, the concept of hegemony developed by Antonio Gramsci is something that I have more and more come to believe is extremely useful for revolutionary communists. Unfortunately, the word has become a synonym for a rather banal, and perhaps even idealist, concept of power employed by post-structuralists and post-modernists. Theorists will speak off-handedly of "the hegemony", or how they are interested in "counter-hegemony", or how something is somehow "hegemonic", and that bad-bad-bad hegemony. (Sometimes, and this is an especially American phenomenon, they will pronounce the word with a hard g––which is really neither here nor there but, for some reason I cannot really explain, bugs the hell out of me.)

    We can trace the appropriation and misuse of Gramsci's theory of hegemony, perhaps, to Edward Said's Orientalism. And though I love Said and feel that Orientalism is a foundational theoretical work, I also feel that it is sadly flawed in so many ways: how it dismisses marxism with a single passage, how it relies too much on Foucault and thus undermines some of its own assertions, and how it somehow thinks that it can blast Gramscian concepts out of their historical materialist context and apply them, as if theory is an all you can eat buffet, in contexts where they do not necessarily belong. Following Said there was an explosion of post-colonial theory that relied heavily on Gramscian concepts but, like Said, did damage to these concepts (hegemony, subaltern) in an attempt to hammer them into a post-structuralist mould.

    The post-structuralist obsessive theories of power conditions this misuse of Gramsci. Totalizing power, biopower, power deployed genealogically, always inescapable and ineffable power at the root of even the subject… An idealist notion of power to be sure because this power is something that often appears to be transhistorical, is ultimately not generated by anything except itself (for the subject is a myth, we are told, and cannot produce anything––in truth it is fully produced), and is thus akin to some Platonic form. And when those of us who are critical marxists argue that you cannot speak of power unless you are willing to also qualify its material meaning––is it economic or political, reactionary or progressive?––this anti-marxist critical tradition would have us believe that to even ask these questions is itself the result of discursive power relations. Yes, I know I am simplifying here but I am not interested in taking the piss out of post-modern philosophy. Rather, I am interested in noting how Gramsci has been simplified and appropriated by this theoretical tradition: hegemony becomes a synonym for this idealist concept of power, is thus treated as something malicious (saying the hegemony is often tantamount to saying, for secular post-structuralists, the devil), and counter-hegemony becomes the progressive solution to hegemony.

    And yet Gramsci's theorization of hegemony had nothing to do with this almost moralistic––post-structuralist complaints about the construction of morality notwithstanding––understanding of his concept. Rather, hegemony is a way of understanding the marxist theory of ideology as well as what it means to build a revolutionary movement against capitalism and possible problems encountered in the building of socialism. That is, it is not simply just a theorization of some bare notion of power, some moralistic complaint about the oppressive power, but about the general relationship of power and ideology. Most importantly, and this is why I keep coming back to it in discussions and meditations about concrete organizing, Gramsci's theory of hegemony concerns real problems encountered in the real world regarding how to build something that is properly revolutionary.
    http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/06/hegemony-and-class-revolution.html

  9. #9
    Not 100% sure what to make of it because I am not an expert on Gramsci and am often wary of who he is most frequently invoked by (and why) but thats one of the best cuts on Gramsci I've read. Interesting.

  10. #10
    they used to have "the modern prince" and some other stuff on marxists.org but i guess the gramsci estate had it taken down.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by brother cakes View Post
    they used to have "the modern prince" and some other stuff on marxists.org but i guess the gramsci estate had it taken down.
    You have a knack for finding interesting blogs. Which ones do you regularly keep up with? Sometimes its hard to get past the eccentricities of the author, ha..

  12. #12
    Senior Member TBF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    2,192
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by blindpig View Post
    I was wanting some satire and low and behold! OK, which one of youse guys wrote this? It is brilliant satire, Swift should be ashamed.

    Where to begin? No organization, no demands, no class war, essentially no nothing. Certainly no Marx or commies, not even a lame ass reference to democratic socialism. But we got "really big ideas", shit, we got 'meta memes'! And that 1% tax on financial transactions will show 'em who's boss! Priceless.

    What, it's not satire?

    Ride that motherfucker outta town on a rail.
    I liked the leaderless aspect of it but the problem I have had with Occupy is no demands. In wanting to be everything to everyone you run the risk of being nothing to anyone. They want the leaders to peacefully see that they are nice, ernest people and the ruling class should in return be kind. That has never worked historically and it won't work now. Instead of occupying central park, how about we occupy Jamie Dimon's penthouse apartment? You have to get in their face and threaten - there is no other way.

    The demand list I saw years ago on this site would be a good place to start - I cleaned it up to post it on a dem site - but it is still pretty good (not sure who the author is - likely Anax or Chlamor) -

    DEMANDS:

    1) Universal Single Payer Health Care

    2) Promotion/Development of Local Food Systems

    3) Government subsidized heating programs

    4) 90% Reduction In Military Budget

    5) Immediate Development Of Nationwide Mass Transit System

    6) Immediate Withdrawal Of US Troops From All Parts Of The Globe

    7) Triple The Taxes For Anyone Making Over $75,000/ Year. Sliding Scale Tilting Upwards

    8) Immediate Dissolution Of All Federal Banking Systems followed by Creation Of Local Currencies

    8) Elimination Of Rent/Mortgage

    10) Fair Trials For All Members Of The Senate

    11) Open Borders For People, Closed Borders For Bananas

    12) Elimination of all Free Trade Agreements

  13. #13
    That was Chlamor's work, but I don't see how it needed 'cleaning up'. If we should occupy Jamie Dimon's pad should we not 'occupy' the cyber-space of the treacherous Democrats? Of course there will be repercussions but by their reaction you shall know them. Truly, that joint has gotten so 'on message' that one might as well post at Free Republic.

  14. #14
    The DUmp and FR are the same animal. It is the pushmepullyou of the owner class. Neither has anything to offer except object lessons in sycophancy...
    "The present status of society is but the result of the struggle of humankind during this and preceding periods - yes, struggle! "You cannot reform society by the sprinkling of rose oil" said Mirabeau, and history proves the correctness of this statement. In no age did the rulers and despoilers of our race relinquish their hold upon the throat of their victims, unless forced to - by logic and argument? No...Blood, the precious sap was ever the price of liberty." August Spies, 1886

  15. #15
    Senior Member TBF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    2,192
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by blindpig View Post
    That was Chlamor's work, but I don't see how it needed 'cleaning up'. If we should occupy Jamie Dimon's pad should we not 'occupy' the cyber-space of the treacherous Democrats? Of course there will be repercussions but by their reaction you shall know them. Truly, that joint has gotten so 'on message' that one might as well post at Free Republic.
    I thought I may have removed one or two - maybe not. It is a good list of immediate demands (it could go much further frankly) and I think Occupy could use it right now if they were serious.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by TBF View Post
    I thought I may have removed one or two - maybe not. It is a good list of immediate demands (it could go much further frankly) and I think Occupy could use it right now if they were serious.
    'If they were serious', indeed. That does not appear to be the case, not at all. Lack of demands, lack of organization, all of this 'anti-hierarchical' idealistic anarchist nonsense, a recipe for inertia. What have the people accomplished without organization? Or to turn it around, what have the anarchists ever accomplished? Our enemies are surpassingly powerful, our only strength is our numbers, but without organization we are chickens before a ravaging predator. We are at war with the ruling class and if we do not accept the necessities of the struggle we are lost. Seems like Occupy is just another bad joke on the people, another distraction. We don't have time for this.

  17. #17
    Senior Member anaxarchos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Hurricane Alley
    Posts
    5,320
    It is pretty much guaranteed that when one jumps over "how shit really works" - on the assumption that "everyone already knows all about that" - and goes straight to marketing (i.e. "how one frames/spins/presents/sloganeers the 'message'")... well, it is pretty much certain that Clown College is open for the season...

    The meme for who/what exactly?


  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by TBF View Post
    I liked the leaderless aspect of it but the problem I have had with Occupy is no demands. In wanting to be everything to everyone you run the risk of being nothing to anyone. They want the leaders to peacefully see that they are nice, ernest people and the ruling class should in return be kind. That has never worked historically and it won't work now. Instead of occupying central park, how about we occupy Jamie Dimon's penthouse apartment? You have to get in their face and threaten - there is no other way.
    Well there's Occupy and there's 'Occupy.' There are miles of differences, not just literally, between Occupy Oakland and Occupy Biscotti, I mean Zucotti Park.

    The demand list I saw years ago on this site would be a good place to start - I cleaned it up to post it on a dem site - but it is still pretty good (not sure who the author is - likely Anax or Chlamor) -
    I've posted similar on decidedly more working class forums. Keep cleaning if you want stiffs to get behind it.

    DEMANDS:

    1) Universal Single Payer Health Care
    Yes

    2) Promotion/Development of Local Food Systems
    No one cares.

    3) Government subsidized heating programs
    No. Lower the goddamn rates.

    4) 90% Reduction In Military Budget
    50%

    5) Immediate Development Of Nationwide Mass Transit System
    Yes

    6) Immediate Withdrawal Of US Troops From All Parts Of The Globe
    Right, and pay $10 a gallon for gas? We all know why we're there. Figure out how to run our cars on pop cans first.

    7) Triple The Taxes For Anyone Making Over $75,000/ Year. Sliding Scale Tilting Upwards
    Oh hell no! $75k - 100k would be a decent salary.

    8) Immediate Dissolution Of All Federal Banking Systems followed by Creation Of Local Currencies
    No one cares.

    8) Elimination Of Rent/Mortgage
    Nope. Pay us enough to make the rent/mortgage.

    10) Fair Trials For All Members Of The Senate
    Uh...whatever

    11) Open Borders For People, Closed Borders For Bananas
    No! Open borders mean cheap labor. Period.

    12) Elimination of all Free Trade Agreements
    YES!

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by runs with scissors View Post
    DEMANDS:

    1) Universal Single Payer Health Care
    Yes Free health care for all

    2) Promotion/Development of Local Food Systems
    No one cares. We take over Big Ag, free food

    3) Government subsidized heating programs
    No. Lower the goddamn rates. Free heating for all

    4) 90% Reduction In Military Budget
    50% We take their guns and bombs and arm ourselves against them

    5) Immediate Development Of FREE Nationwide Mass Transit System
    Yes

    6) Immediate Withdrawal Of US Troops From All Parts Of The Globe
    Right, and pay $10 a gallon for gas? We all know why we're there. Figure out how to run our cars on pop cans first.

    Break bourgeoisie control and dissolve their military, throw in their "justice" system (police, courts, prisons) while we're at it


    7) Triple The Taxes For Anyone Making Over $75,000/ Year. Sliding Scale Tilting Upwards
    Oh hell no! $75k - 100k would be a decent salary. Free access to all basics and essentials, worry about salaries after that. Expropriation of every thing over six figures in the bank

    8) Immediate Dissolution Of All Federal Banking Systems followed by Creation Of Local Currencies
    No one cares. We take over the banks and stamp Lenin's head on all currency

    8) Elimination Of Rent/Mortgage
    Nope. Pay us enough to make the rent/mortgage. Lawyers..then Landlords (but more in one fell swoop)

    10) Fair Trials For All Members Of The Senate
    Uh...whatever Supermax

    11) Open Borders For People, Closed Borders For Bananas
    No! Open borders mean cheap labor. Period. Fuck borders, whoever is hungry eats the bananas

    12) Elimination of all Free Trade Agreements
    YES! because there are no fucking borders
    see above

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid of the Black Hole View Post
    see above
    That's the spirit! Push, push, push.

    #10- Trials in the medical research lexicon. Got cortex, fracking juice?

    #8- You dreamer, you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •