Breaking News 突發新聞 | | Forum 論壇 | | UK News 英國新聞 | | USA News 美國新聞 | | World News 世界新聞 | | Political News 政治新聞 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新聞 | | War & Terrorism News 戰爭和恐怖主義新聞 | | Sports News 體育新聞 | | Multimedia 多媒體 | | Set Homepage 設為首頁

BREAKING NEWS 突發新聞

Saturday, June 28th, 2008 週六， 2008年6月28日

By通過 Slavoj Zizek斯拉沃伊齊澤克 | In 1968 Paris, one of the best-known graffiti messages on the city’s walls was “Structures do not walk on the streets!” In other words, the massive student and workers demonstrations of ‘68 could not be explained in the terms of structuralism, as determined by the structural changes in society, as in Saussurean structuralism. |在1968年巴黎，其中最知名的塗鴉訊息對城市的牆壁是“結構不走在街上！ ： ”換句話說，大量的學生和工人的示威'68無法解釋的條款的結構，所確定的結構性轉變，在社會上，由於在saussurean結構。 French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan’s response was that this, precisely, is what happened in ‘68: structures did descend onto the streets.法國psychoanalyst拉康的回應是，這，正是，這是發生在'68 ：結構沒有下降走上街頭。 The visible explosive events on the streets were, ultimately, the result of a structural imbalance.有形的爆炸事件對街道，最終的結果是結構性的失衡。

There are good reasons for Lacan’s skeptical view.有很好的理由拉康的持懷疑態度的看法。 As French scholars Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello noted in 1999’s The New Spirit of Capitalism , from the ’70s onward, a new form of capitalism emerged.正如法國學者呂克波爾坦斯基和夏娃夏佩羅指出，在1999年的新的資本主義精神 ，從七十年代起，一種新形式的資本主義出現。

Capitalism abandoned the hierarchical Fordist structure of the production process — which, named after auto maker Henry Ford, enforced a hierarchical and centralized chain of command — and developed a network-based form of organization that accounted for employee initiative and autonomy in the workplace.資本主義被遺棄的層次fordist結構，生產過程中-其中，命名後，汽車製造商亨利福特，強迫層次和集中統一的指揮鏈-並制定了基於網絡的組織形式，佔僱員的積極性和自主權，在工作場所。 As a result, we get networks with a multitude of participants, organizing work in teams or by projects, intent on customer satisfaction and public welfare, or worrying about ecology.因此，我們得到網絡與眾多的參與者，在組織工作隊，或由項目，意圖對客戶的滿意度和公共福利，或擔心生態環境。

In this way, capitalism usurped the left’s rhetoric of worker self-management, turning it from an anti-capitalist slogan to a capitalist one.就這樣，資本主義篡奪左側的修辭工人的自我管理，把它從一個反資本主義的口號，以一個資本主義1 。 It was Socialism that was conservative, hierarchic and administrative.這是社會主義，這是保守的，層次和行政責任。

The anti-capitalist protests of the ’60s supplemented the traditional critique of socioeconomic exploitation with a new cultural critique: alienation of everyday life, commodification of consumption, inauthenticity of a mass society in which we “wear masks” and suffer sexual and other oppressions.反資本主義的抗議，六十年代，輔以傳統的批判與社會經濟剝削的一種新的文化批判：異化的日常生活中，商品化的消費， inauthenticity一個大規模的社會在這方面，我們“戴口罩” ，並遭受性暴力和其他壓迫。

The new capitalism triumphantly appropriated this anti-hierarchical rhetoric of ‘68, presenting itself as a successful libertarian revolt against the oppressive social organizations of corporate capitalism and “really existing” socialism.新資本主義的勝利撥這個反分層修辭'68 ，介紹了本身作為一個成功的自由反抗壓迫的社會組織，企業和資本主義“真的現有的”社會主義。 This new libertarian spirit is epitomized by dressed-down “cool” capitalists such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates and the founders of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.這個新的自由精神，是體現穿著式“酷”的資本家，如微軟的比爾蓋茨和創始人本＆傑里的冰淇淋。

What survived of the sexual liberation of the ’60s was the tolerant hedonism readily incorporated into our hegemonic ideology.什麼存活的性解放，六十年代是寬容的享樂主義隨時納入我們的霸權思想。 Today, sexual enjoyment is not only permitted, it is ordained — individuals feel guilty if they are not able to enjoy it.今天，性享受的不僅是允許的，這是祝聖-個人感到內疚，如果他們沒有能夠享受它。 The drive to radical forms of enjoyment (through sexual experiments and drugs or other trance-inducing means) arose at a precise political moment: when “the spirit of ‘68″ had exhausted its political potential.驅動器，以激進的形式享受（透過性試驗和藥物或其他trance誘導的手段）出現在一個確切的政治時刻：當“的精神， '68 ”已耗盡了它的政治潛力。

At this critical point in the mid-’70s, we witnessed a direct, brutal push-toward-the-Real, which assumed three main forms: first, the search for extreme forms of sexual enjoyment; second, the turn toward the Real of an inner experience (Oriental mysticism); and, finally, the rise of leftist political terrorism (Red Army Faction in Germany, Red Brigades in Italy, etc.).在這個關鍵點在中，七十年代，我們見證了直接的，野蠻的推-對- -真正的，假定的三種主要形式：第一，搜索的極端形式的性享受;第二，轉向真正的黨內的經驗（東方神秘主義） ;以及最後，崛起的左派政治恐怖主義（紅軍派在德國，紅色旅，在意大利，等等） 。

Leftist political terror operated under the belief that, in an epoch in which the masses are totally immersed in capitalist ideological sleep, the standard critique of ideology is no longer operative.左派的政治恐怖下運作，相信，在一個劃時代的，其中，人民群眾是完全沉浸在資本主義思想的睡眠，標準的批判思想，是不再執行。 Only a resort to the raw Real of direct violence could awaken them.只有訴諸原始的真正的直接的暴力行為可以喚醒他們。

What these three options share is the withdrawal from concrete socio-political engagement, and we feel the consequences of this withdrawal from engagement today.什麼這三個選項的份額是從具體的社會政治參與，和我們覺得的後果，這從今天的接觸。

Autumn 2005’s suburb riots in France saw thousands of cars burning and a major outburst of public violence. 2005年秋季的郊區暴動，在法國看到數以千計的汽車和燃燒的一個主要突發公共暴力事件。 But what struck the eye was the absence of any positive utopian vision among protesters.但什麼擊中眼睛是沒有任何積極的烏托邦式的遠景之間的示威者。 If May ‘68 was a revolt with a utopian vision, the 2005 revolt was an outburst with no pretense to vision.如果可能'68是一個反抗與一個烏托邦的理想， 2005年起義是一個突出的，沒有幌子的遠見。

Here’s proof of the common aphorism that we live in a post-ideological era: The protesters in the Paris suburbs made no particular demands.這裡的證明，共同的格言，我們生活在一個後意識形態時代：示威者在巴黎的郊區並沒有特別的要求。 There was only an insistence on recognition , based on a vague, non-articulated resentment.目前只有一，堅持承認的基礎上，一個空泛的，非鉸接式不滿。

The fact that there was no program in the burning of Paris suburbs tells us that we inhabit a universe in which, though it celebrates itself as a society of choice, the only option available to the enforced democratic consensus is the explosion of (self-)destructive violence.事實上，有沒有計劃在燃燒的巴黎郊區的告訴我們，我們居住的宇宙中，雖然它慶祝本身作為一個社會的選擇，唯一的選擇，提供給執行民主的共識是爆炸（自我）破壞性的暴力行為。

Recall here Lacan’s challenge to the protesting students in ‘68: “As revolutionaries, you are hysterics who demand a new master.在這裡回顧拉康的挑戰，抗議學生在'68 ： “作為革命家，你是誰hysterics需求的新主人。 You will get one.”你會得到一“ 。

And we did get one — in the guise of the post-modern “permissive” master whose domination is all the stronger for being less visible.我們沒有得到一個-在假借後現代“寬容”師父，其統治是所有強被不太顯眼。

While many undoubtedly positive changes accompanied this passage — such as new freedoms and access to positions of power for women — one should nonetheless raise hard questions: Was this passage from one “spirit of capitalism” to another really all that happened in ‘68?雖然許多積極的變化，無疑是伴隨著這一段-如新的自由和獲得權力地位的婦女-一，但應努力提高的問題：這是通過從一個“資本主義精神”到另一個真的都發生在' 6 8？ Was all the drunken enthusiasm of freedom just a means to replacing one form of domination with another?是所有醉酒的積極性，自由只是一種手段，以取代一種形式的統治與另一？

Things are not so simple.事情並非如此簡單。 While ‘68 was gloriously appropriated by the dominant culture as an explosion of sexual freedom and anti-hierarchic creativity, France’s Nicholas Sarkozy said in his 2007 presidential campaign that his great task is to make France finally get over ‘68.而'68是光榮核撥的主導文化作為一個爆炸的性自由和反層次的創造力，法國的尼古拉斯薩爾科齊說，在他2007年總統競選，他的偉大的任務是使法國終於獲得超過'68 。

So, what we have is “their” and “our” May ‘68.所以，我們已是“他們”和“我們”可能'68 。 In today’s ideological memory, “our” basic idea of the May demonstrations — the link between students’ protests and workers’ strikes — is forgotten.在今天的思想記憶， “我們”的基本理念五月示威-之間的聯繫，學生的抗議和工人罷工-是遺忘。

If we look at our predicament with the eyes of ‘68, we should remember that, at its core, ‘68 was a rejection of the liberal-capitalist system, a “NO” to the totality of it.如果我們看一看我們的困境與眼中的'68 ，我們應該記住，在其核心， '68是一個拒絕自由資本主義制度， “不”的全部。

It is easy to make fun of political economist Francis Fukuyama’s notion of the “end of history,” of his claim that, in liberal capitalism, we found the best possible social system.這是很容易作出的樂趣政治經濟學家福山的概念“歷史的終結， ”他聲稱，在自由資本主義，我們發現最好的社會制度。 But today, the majority is Fukuyamaist.但今天，大多數是fukuyamaist 。 Liberal-democratic capitalism is accepted as the finally found formula for the best of all possible worlds, all that is left to do is render it more just, tolerant, etc.自由民主的資本主義是被接納為終於找到了公式最好的一切可能的世界，所有這一切都是左要做的就是要使其更加公正，寬容，等等。

When Marco Cicala, an Italian journalist, recently used the word “capitalism” in an article for the Italian daily La Repubblica , his editor asked him if the use of this term was necessary and could he not replace it with a synonym like “economy”?當馬可cicala ，一個意大利記者，最近使用的字， “資本主義”在一篇文章中為意大利日報共和國報 ，他的編輯問他：如果使用這個詞是必要的和可能，他不能取代它與別名一樣， “經濟” ？

What better proof of capitalism’s triumph in the last three decades than the disappearance of the very term “capitalism”?有什麼更好的證明，資本主義的勝利，在過去30年中比失踪的非常長遠的“資本主義” ？ So, again, the only true question today is: Do we endorse this naturalization of capitalism, or does today’s global capitalism contain contradictions strong enough to prevent its indefinite reproduction?因此，再次，唯一真正的今天的問題是：我們是否贊同這一歸化的資本主義，或是否今天的全球資本主義的矛盾，包含強大的足以防止其無限期再生產？

There are (at least) four such antagonisms: the looming threat of ecological catastrophe; the inappropriateness of private property rights for so-called “intellectual property”; the socio-ethical implications of new techno-scientific developments (especially in biogenetics); and, last but not least, new forms of apartheid , in the form of new walls and slums.有（至少）四個這樣的對立：迫在眉睫的威脅的生態災難;不適當的私有財產的權利，使所謂的“知識產權” ;的社會倫理影響的新技術科學發展 （特別是在biogenetics ） ;最後但並非最不重要， 新形式的種族隔離 ，在形式，新的城牆和貧民窟。

The first three antagonisms concern the domains of what political theorists Michael Hardt and Toni Negri call “commons” — the shared substance of our social being whose privatization is a violent act that should be resisted with violent means, if necessary (violence against private property, that is).首三個對立關注的領域，什麼樣的政治理論家邁克爾hardt和托妮negri稱之為“商品” -共同的實質，我們的社會正在其私有化是一種暴力行為，應予以抵制與暴力手段，如有必要（暴力侵害私人財產，這是） 。

The commons of external nature are threatened by pollution and exploitation (from oil to forests and natural habitat itself); the commons of internal nature (the biogenetic inheritance of humanity) are threatened by technological interference; and the commons of culture — the socialized forms of “cognitive” capital, primarily language, our means of communication and education, but also the shared infrastructure of public transport, electricity, post, etc. — are privatized for profit. 該商品的外部性質的威脅，污染和剝削（從石油到森林和自然生境本身） ; 下議院的內部性質 （生物繼承人類）的威脅，技術干擾; 和商品的文化 -社會化形式的“認知”的資本，主要是語言，我們的通信手段和教育，但也共用基礎設施，公共交通，電力，郵政等-是私有化的利潤。 (If Bill Gates were to be allowed a monopoly, we would have reached the absurd situation in which a private individual would have owned the software texture of our basic network of communication.) （如果比爾蓋茨被允許壟斷的情況，我們將已達到荒謬的情況，其中個人將擁有該軟件的質地我們的基本網絡通信） 。

We are gradually becoming aware of the destructive potential, up to the self-annihilation of humanity itself, that could be unleashed if the capitalist logic of enclosing these commons is allowed a free run.我們正逐步成為意識到的破壞性潛力，向自我毀滅人類本身而言，可釋放出如果資本主義的邏輯，附上這些商品是允許一個自由運行。

Economist Nicholas Stern rightly characterized the climate crisis as “the greatest market failure in human history.”經濟學家尼古拉斯斯特恩是正確的特點是氣候危機，作為“最大的市場失靈在人類歷史上” 。

There is an increasing awareness that we need global environmental citizenship, a political space to address climate change as a matter of common concern of all humanity.有一個日益認識到，我們需要全球環境公民，政治空間，以解決氣候變化問題作為共同關心的所有人類。

One should give weight to the terms “global citizenship” and “common concern.” Doesn’t this desire to establish a global political organization and engagement that will neutralize and channel market forces mean that we are in need of a properly communist perspective?一，應重視的條件“全球公民”和“共同關心”並不這一願望，以建立一個全球性的政治組織和接觸，這將抵消和渠道，市場力量意味著我們需要在一個適當的共產主義的角度來看呢？ The need to protect the “commons” justifies the resuscitation of the notion of Communism: It enables us to see the ongoing “enclosure” of our commons as a process of proletarization of those who are thereby excluded from their own substance.需要保護的“商品”有理由復甦的概念，共產主義：它使我們能夠看到正在進行的“圈地”我們的商品的過程，作為proletarization這些是誰，從而排除從自身的實質內容。

It is, however, only the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded that properly justifies the term Communism.然而，它只有對立，包括和排除，妥善合理的任期共產主義。 In slums around the world, we are witnessing the fast growth of a population outside state control, living in conditions outside the law, in terrible need of minimal forms of self-organization.在貧民窟的世界各地，我們正在目睹的快速增長，人口以外的國家控制，居住在條件，在法律以外，在可怕的有需要的最低限度的形式的自治組織。 Although marginalized laborers, redundant civil servants and ex-peasants make up this population, they are not simply a redundant surplus: They are incorporated into the global economy, many working as informal wage workers or self-employed entrepreneurs, with no adequate health or social security coverage.雖然邊緣化的勞動者，多餘的公務員和前農民彌補這部分人口，他們是不是一個簡單的多餘的盈餘：他們被納入全球經濟，很多工作作為非正式工人或自僱企業家，沒有足夠的健康問題或社會保障的覆蓋面。 (The main source of their rise is the inclusion of the Third World countries in the global economy, with cheap food imports from the First World countries ruining local agriculture.) These new slum dwellers are not an unfortunate accident, but a necessary product of the innermost logic of global capitalism. （的主要來源，他們的崛起，是列入第三世界國家在全球經濟中，廉價的進口食品，從第一世界國家，敗壞了當地的農業。 ）這些新的貧民窟居民沒有一個不幸的意外，但一個必要的產品的內心的邏輯，全球資本主義。

Whoever lives in the favelas — or shanty towns — of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, or in Shanghai, China, is not essentially different from someone who lives in the banlieues — or outskirts — of Paris or the ghettos of Chicago.誰住在貧民窟 -或棚戶區-巴西的里約熱內盧，或在上海，中國，是沒有本質的不同，有人誰的生命，在b a nlieues-或郊區-巴黎，或貧民區的芝加哥。

If the principal task of the 19th century’s emancipatory politics was to break the monopoly of the bourgeois liberals by politicizing the working class, and if the task of the 20th century was to politically awaken the immense rural population of Asia and Africa, the principal task of the 21st century is to politicize — organize and discipline — the “destructured masses” of slum-dwellers.如果主要任務19世紀的解放政治是打破壟斷資產階級自由派政治化的勞動階層，如果任務，二十世紀是政治上喚醒了巨大的農村人口的亞洲和非洲，主要任務二十一世紀是政治-組織和紀律- “d e structured人民群眾的”貧民窟居住者。

If we ignore this problem of the Excluded, all other antagonisms lose their subversive edge.如果我們忽視這個問題的排除在外，其他所有的敵意失去顛覆優勢。

Ecology turns into a problem of sustainable development.生態變成了可持續發展問題。 Intellectual property turns into a complex legal challenge.知識產權變成了一個複雜的法律問題的挑戰。 Biogenetics becomes an ethical issue. biogenetics成為一個道德問題。 Corporations — like Whole Foods and Starbucks — enjoy favor among liberals even though they engage in anti-union activities; they just sell products with a progressive spin.公司-一樣，整個食品和星巴克-享有主張之間的自由主義者，即使他們從事反工會活動;他們只是銷售產品與一個漸進的自旋。

You buy coffee made with beans bought at above fair-market value.你買的咖啡與豆買在上述公平市價。

You drive a hybrid vehicle.你駕駛的混合動力汽車。

You buy from companies that provide good benefits for their customers (according to corporation’s standards).您購買由公司提供良好的福利，為他們的客戶（按公司的標準） 。

In short, without the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded, we may well find ourselves in a world in which Bill Gates is the greatest humanitarian fighting poverty and diseases, and NewCorp’s Rupert Murdoch the greatest environmentalist mobilizing hundreds of millions through his media empire.在短期內，沒有對立，包括和排除，我們很可能發現自己在這個世界中，比爾蓋茨是最大的人道主義戰勝貧困和疾病，以及newcorp的默多克最大的環保動員億萬通過他的媒體帝國。

In contrast to the classic image of proletarians who have “nothing to lose but their chains,” we are thus ALL in danger of losing ALL.在對比的經典形象，無產者誰“不會失去什麼，但他們的連鎖店， ”因此，我們對所有的危險，失去一切。 The risk is that we will be reduced to abstract empty Cartesian subjects deprived of substantial content, dispossessed of symbolic substance, our genetic base manipulated, vegetating in an unlivable environment.風險是，我們將減少到抽象的空洞的笛卡爾科目被剝奪的實質性內容，剝奪了象徵性的實質內容，我們的遺傳基礎操縱， vegetating在一unlivable環境。

These triple threats to our being make all of us potential proletarians.這些三重威脅，我們正在盡一切我們潛在的無產者。 And the only way to prevent actually becoming one is to act preventively.和唯一的出路，以防止實際上成為一個是採取預防行動。

The true legacy of ‘68 is best encapsulated in the formula Soyons realistes, demandons l’impossible! (Let’s be realists, demand the impossible.)真正的遺產'68是最好封裝在公式soyons realistes ， demandons l'是不可能的！ （讓我們得到的現實主義者，需求不可能） 。

Today’s utopia is the belief that the existing global system can reproduce itself indefinitely.今天的烏托邦，是信念，即現有的全球系統可以重現本身無限期地。 The only way to be realistic is to envision what, within the coordinates of this system, cannot but appear as impossible.唯一途徑是不切實際的設想是什麼，坐標這個制度，不能，但似乎不可能。

See More: 看到更多的： History 歷史

Have Your Say: The Big Outcome of the ’60s: The Triumph of Capitalism 你說：大的結果，六十年代：勝利的資本主義
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。

Or discuss this report in our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的新論壇

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Name (required) 姓名（必填）

Mail (will not be published) (required) 郵件（不會被公佈） （必填）

Website 網站

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 28th, 2008 at 4:50 am and is filed under 此項目被張貼在週六， 2008年6月28日在上午04時50分，並提交下 Business News 商業新聞 , ， Culture 文化 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the 您可以按照任何的反應，此項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. 餵養。 You can 您可以 leave a response 留下的回應 , or ，或 trackback Trackback跟踪 from your own site. 從你自己的網站。

Loading ...載入中...

TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS top新聞討論

LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS 最新消息討論

Activism & Protest News 積極與抗議新聞 | | Business News 商業新聞 | | Civil & Human Rights News 公務員＆人權新聞 | | Environmental News 環境新聞 | | Media News 新聞 | | Globalisation News 全球經濟一體化新聞 | | Web Development News Web開發新聞

ADVERTISEMENTS廣告

SITE MAPS網站地圖

7/7 7 / 7 Afghanistan阿富汗 Alternative Energy替代能源 Art藝術 BBC英國廣播公司 Big Brother大哥哥 Bilderberg 。 Bilderberg Biometrics生物識別技術 Bush布什 CIA美國中央情報局 Climate Change氣候變化 Cover Up掩蓋 Cults邪教 Culture文化 Database State數據庫狀態 David Hicks大衛希克斯 David Ray Griffin朱射線格里芬 Democrats同盟 Demos演示 Drugs藥物 Education教育 EU歐盟 False Flag虛假國旗 FBI美國聯邦調查局 Fraud欺詐 Free Speech免費的講話 Freemasons共濟會 G8八國集團 Globalization全球化 Guantanamo關塔那摩 Health News健康新聞 History歷史 ID Cards身份證 Internet互聯網 Iran伊朗 Iraq伊拉克 Israel以色列 Law法律 Marches遊行 MI5軍情五處 MI6軍情六處 Microsoft微軟 Military軍事 MoD按付款當日價格計算 Money金錢 Music音樂 NASA美國航天局 Neocons新保守主義者 NSA美國國家安全局 Oil石油 Pakistan巴基斯坦 Podcast播客 Police State警察國家 Propaganda宣傳 RFID的RFID RINF rinf Rumsfeld拉姆斯菲爾德 Science科學 Secrecy保密 Security安全 Slavery奴役 Space空間 Sports體育 Spying諜報活動 Stephen Lendman斯蒂芬lendman Technology技術 Terrorism恐怖主義 Tony Blair托尼布萊爾 Torture酷刑 TV電視 UK News英國新聞 UN聯合國 USA News美國新聞 Video視頻 Voting投票 Warfare戰 White House白宮 Wolfowitz沃爾福威茨 World News世界新聞 Yahoo雅虎
2003 - 2005 Archives 2003 -2 005檔案 | 2005 - 2007 Archives 2005年-2 007年檔案 | 2007 - 2008 Archives 2007 -2 008檔案 | Current Archives目前檔案 | Past Version |過去的版本

About 大約 | | DVD Store DVD的商店 | | Opinion 民意 | | Reviews 評語 | | Special Guests 特別來賓 | | Webmasters 網站管理員