Class struggle on Wall Street, by Slavoj Zizek

A little more radical than the text Wallerstein:

Class struggle on Wall Street, by Slavoj Zizek

LEMONDE 09.10.08

The first thing that is obvious when looking at responses to the current financial collapse is that ... nobody really knows what to do. This is because the uncertainty is part of the game the way the market will react depends not only on the confidence the players will give government interventions but, more importantly, the degree of confidence they think they can lend to other players: you can not take into account the effect of its interventions.



We are forced to make choices without knowledge that would enable us to make an informed choice, or, as John Gray said: "We are forced to live as if we were free." But since we constantly repeat that confidence and belief are crucial, we should also ask ourselves to what extent that the American administration has in panic, heightened the stakes, has not aggravated the danger it tries to stave off. It is easy to note the similarity of language used by President Bush in his speech to the American people after the September 11-and one that followed the financial collapse: it looks like two versions of the same speech. On both occasions, he mentioned the threat to the American way of life itself and the need to react quickly and decisively to cope. Twice, he called for the temporary abandonment of American values (the guarantees for individual freedoms, market capitalism) to save these same values. This paradox is it inevitable? The pressure to "do something" akin by the superstitious compulsion to make a gesture when we observe a process on which we have no real influence. It also happens sometimes that we act for not talking and thinking about what we do. For example, to respond quickly to a problem, releasing $ 700 billion instead of wondering how it appeared. Returning to 15 July, when Republican Senator Jim Bunning attacked the president of the Federal Reserve of the United States, Ben Bernanke, saying that his proposal showed that "socialism is indeed living in America": "The Fed wants now be the regulator of systemic risk. But the Fed is systemic risk. Empowering the Fed is up to the kid who broke your window playing baseball in the street a bat more, and that this will solve the problem. " Bunning was the first to publicly outline the reasoning behind the Republican Party revolt against the federal rescue plan. This argument deserves that we look more closely. We can point out that resistance to the rescue plan was formulated in terms of "class struggle": the stock market, Wall Street, against the street, Main Street. Why should we help those responsible for the crisis ( "Wall Street"), and leave ordinary borrowers (in "Main Street") pay the price? Is not this a perfect example of what economic theory called "moral hazard"? The latter is defined as "the risk that someone acts so immoral because it is protected by insurance, laws or other institutions against the harm that his conduct might otherwise result." In other words, if I am insured against fire, I will take fewer precautions against fire (or, in the extreme, I will even fire to buildings but I have insured that generate losses). The same is true for large banks: are they not protected against large losses while being able to keep their profits? We will not be surprised to learn that Michael Moore has already written a public letter in which he denounced the rescue plan as the looting of the century. The unexpected overlap of the left and conservative Republicans should give us food for thought. They share their contempt for large speculators and CEO who benefit from risky decisions but are protected from bankruptcy by golden parachutes. Does he not the same for the bankruptcy of Enron in January 2002, which can be interpreted as a kind of ironic commentary on the idea of risk society? The thousands of employees who lost their jobs and their savings were certainly at risk, but without any real alternative. Those who, by contrast, had not only a real understanding of the risks, but also the possibility of intervening in the situation (the leaders) have minimized their risk by cashing their actions and their options before bankruptcy. While it is true that we live in a society of risky choices, some (the bosses of Wall Street) operate choice, while others (ordinary people paying mortgages) take risks ... So the rescue plan is it really a "socialist", the dawn of state socialism in the USA? If so, it is a singular meaning: a "socialist" whose primary purpose is not to help the poor but the rich, not those who borrow, but to those who lend. The supreme irony and lies in the fact that the "socialization" of the banking system is acceptable when used to save capitalism: socialism is bad - except when it helps to stabilize capitalism. And if, however, a "moral hazard" was recorded in the same basic structure of capitalism? In other words, the problem is that it is impossible to separate them: in the capitalist system, the well-being in Main Street is subject to the prosperity of Wall Street. Thus, while the populist Republicans who oppose the rescue plan evil act for good reasons, supporters of salvage work well for the wrong reasons. To put it in a more refined propositional logic, their relationship is not transitive: that what is good for Wall Street does not necessarily Main Street, Main Street can not thrive if Wall Street goes wrong. And this asymmetry provides an advantage in advance on Wall Street. All this clearly shows that there is no market neutral in every situation, the details of the interaction market are still regulated by political decisions. The real dilemma is not whether the state should intervene or not, but what form it should do so. And here we are faced with the real: the struggle to define the details "apolitical" core of our lives. All issues are political in a sense non-partisan, they relate to the question: "What is the nature of our country?" Thus, it is precisely the debate on the rescue plan which is a real problem concerning political decisions on the basic elements of our social and economic life, even raise the ghost of class struggle (Wall Street or mortgagees Speech of the state or not?) We can find no enlightened position "objective" that we simply need to apply here, we must take sides politically. What is the solution? The great German idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant said the conservative motto: "Do not obey!" Not by "N'obéissez not think!", But "Obey, but think!" When we are subjected to blackmail as the rescue plan, we must bear in mind that this is blackmail, and then try to resist the temptation of populist give expression to our anger and so our officers with clubs. Instead of yielding to such a helpless expression, we should control our anger and turn it into a firm resolve to think, reflect on a really radical to ask what is this company that we are making to leave possible this kind of blackmail.

Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher.