To me this is the most interesting or self revealing part - that he himself, like the great majority "wants to be passive and rely on an efficient state apparatus to guarantee the smooth running of the entire social edifice, so that I can pursue my work in peace." I am usually reluctant to judge a theorist by their personal idiosyncrasies - but doesn't this reveal something about his analysis of the contemporary situation? Not only that we need a master, leader or party organization, but that the passivity of the masses is something inherent to the current situation? And he seems to endorse this? It's funny that he approvingly mentions Lippmann - someone that Dewey had an epic argument with precisely regarding the issue of elites. If only we had "enlightened elites" everything would be better. I realize this isn't what he is saying but it comes close.

Thank you for posting this. I will give Zizek credit for being consistent. But he always begs the question - who gets to chose the left's new master? Presumably centralization of organization is a prerequisite but he certainly should offer more. Perhaps Chavez is a better model than Thatcher, who had the power of the elite behind her.

I think this reflects a general sense from some members of the elite that the regular solutions to economic development are inadequate to the task. And the post on socialism you linked to is also of interest here - people are looking for other solutions, especially young people. But my fear is that some sort of explicitly militarist fascism is also a likely outcome. Perhaps with the violent suppression of occupy and the drone wars we are already there. But I appreciate your effort to point out seedlings of change. Thank you.

Certainly "market sentiment" is essential for short term investing. Even the very notion of how the market will react to certain news, or how it reacts when certain expectations are not met. Feelings are shared, and yet we still interact with the market through our individual investments, even if it is only a 401k or 403b. I know the personal anguish of people who retired soon after the crash in 2008, or those who couldn't retire at all. These people certainly experienced the impersonal forces of the market in a very personal way. But having said that I appreciate that you are occupying these concepts, pushing them to the limit. And clearly the economic collapse has demonstrated our impotence before mammon. I appreciate the provocation.

I just finished my last comment on the previous post and then saw this. I think Zizek makes my point for me - how can we possibly understand the experience of "rising expectations" without a notion of the autonomous individual? Even if this ends up being a fiction, we can not have the conditions of rising expectations without a notion of individual entitlement. Democratic politicians continually tell us that if I "work hard and play by the rules" I ought to be able to have a comfortable life (materially) and provide for my family. You may suggest that this is bull shit, but the rhetoric expresses a real feeling expressed by real individuals.

I guess I don't assume that personhood or individuality is clear. In fact I think the individual is a contested concept just as the collective or the commons is contested. Whether it is a fantasy in the ordinary sense or a psychoanalytic sense - I don't know. But since we do not start from a position of multiple collectivities, at least as I understand the contemporary situation in the United States, I don't how you ignore the notion of an autonomous individual when engaging in politics, either theoretically or politically. I have read a great deal of your commentary on the Occupy movement, and among your criticisms is that its notion of consensus relied on a fetishizing of the individual. My experience with it confirms this. But it still doesn't makes sense that because the neoliberal suject is largely a fiction that you would dismiss the notion we have of ourselves as individuals, in this time and place. Its funny that we are having this disagreement at this moment. I really admire what your recent work has tried to sketch out - how to think communism at this moment, with all the risks and barriers it entails. I just don't think dismissing the fantasy of the autonomous subject eliminates the problem. Even from a strategic point of view, how do you convince people who conceive of themselves in this way to join or sympathize with a movement that tells them their sense of autonomy is a fiction. While it is obvious to everyone that we have no freedom in terms of the decisions that really matter in our economic lives, most of us (myself included) still believe that individual freedom is an essential part of our self consciousness. Even if this self understanding ends up being transitional, you can't ignore its reality. If you do I don't see how you can work toward anything that has an effect in the world. As always, thanks for your willingness to engage.

It seems to me that we only have a consciousness of what self determination might be because of the values of modernity. That this constellation also offers us up as exploitable labor is also true. That is in fact the paradox of being modern - the promise of autonomy inextricably linked to the reality of wage slavery. But I disagree that exploitable labor precludes the promise of freedom. In fact it is a prerequisite for the consciousness of real freedom. And it seems that communism has to address both individual liberty and our collective ability to determine the conditions for freedom. Ignoring individual liberty doesn't make any less essential.

I think this is a very challenging discussion. But I wonder if you risk losing something important in dismissing the "happy story of modernity" to quickly? Specifically, one of the true accomplishments of modernity is the emphasis on individual autonomy, that one is not determined by tradition or one's place in society. Of course Marx, Nietzsche and Freud are among the "masters of suspicion" who have complicated this narrative, but they do not do away with it. It seems to me that a communism worthy of our allegiance is one that incorporates individual autonomy with a collective sense of a common good. And that this tension is not easily overcome by recognizing that neoliberalism over-emphasizes individual freedom. Is there a sense in which the subject is both individual and collective?

Hi Jodi. Thank you for posting this - I will definitly read the entire article. My initial response is that you would have to seize control of the state (and the federal reserve in the US)in order to buy all the shares of outstanding/ publically held equity.Where I think it breaks down (assuming you could pull off the initial steps) is the idea of a "common fund" that reestablishes a “tamed” capital market on a socialized basis. It would seem the very notion of capital markets has been done away with. And the transition that the author wishes to make less "catastrophic" would throw our economic relations into chaos. This may be the goal or may in fact be necessary for what needs to be accomplished - I'm not sure. But it certainly would not reassure the millions of people who would no longer be employees or small business owners or bureaucratic technocrats. This would indeed be a new world, one that would at least initially require some form of centralization. And as you previously referenced, the threat of oligarchy. All that being said I am thrilled that people are actually trying to envision what an alternative would look like - what would actually have to take place in the world of finance and banking. Given my real world life, this actually gives me some hope. Thanks.

Hi Jodi. I like this analysis (without having read the article you cite). But I wonder if it still begs the question of leadership - if the intellectual is merely providing suggestions, who or what decides the relevance and efficacy of those suggestions. If the Party is a necessary part of the movement coming to consciousness, coming to know itself for itself, it still needs a structure in order to be more than a fleeting effervescent spark.

Happy New Year Jodi! Thanks for linking to this interview. As someone who has read quite a bit of Zizek's work (both popular and theoretical) I find it puzzling he is annoyed by all the sychophantic attention and yet seems to crave it simultaneously.

I wonder what you thought of the reviewer's assertion that communism was actually the "highest form" of democracy? I assume you wouldn't agree. :) But this may be the best review of your new book I have seen so far.

Hi Jodi. I really appreciate your sentiment. But people do need to feel like there is some connection between us - even if it is a longing for something we no longer have (or never had to begin with). I think "we persist in the lie" because we have to - we need it in order to go on. Of course that contributes to political apathy and is perhaps the greatest obstacle to mass mobilization.

I had meant to ask you about this passage I recently read on Paul Krugman's blog: "I think our eyes have been averted from the capital/labor dimension of inequality, for several reasons. It didn’t seem crucial back in the 1990s, and not enough people (me included!) have looked up to notice that things have changed. It has echoes of old-fashioned Marxism — which shouldn’t be a reason to ignore facts, but too often is. And it has really uncomfortable implications. But I think we’d better start paying attention to those implications." When a liberal is noticing that marxist economics may explain what is happening we have entered a new day. What do you make of it, if anything. while Krugman is the far end of what is tolerated in mainstream political discussion, he is largely marginalized in terms of actual policy. But I wonder if someone like him could become more radicalized? And if so, would he lose his perch at the NYT? Interesting times.

These stories are inspiring, as well as the Occupy movement. But i suspect this is the beginning of something long term, something that will involve a great deal of failure and violent suppression before we see any positive results. I think as long as we are prepared for a long fight, maybe over several decades, something good is bound to come out of it. There are alot more of us than there are of them. :)

Perhaps your criticism seemed to close to what he perceives as the usual criticism of anarchism? Either way, I am not familiar enough with his work to know how his form of ararchy addresses larger political organizational questions. But I will say from my own experience interacting with folks on the grounds that they strongly resist the idea that they are individualists. they believe that they have a stronger sense of community because of the lack of formal structures - to a degree I here this in the response to Occupy Sandy. Its success has been predicated on its being free of bureaucracy - folks just organizing "organically" from the ground up. I don't think that can work in all situations but this seems to be something that many OWS anarchists are comitted to.

Hi Jodi. I was reading the discussion that followed this interview and I was surprised (perhaps naievly) by the personal nature of David Graeber's response. Leaving that to oneside, you seem to think that his consensus model is antithetical to radical politics? Is that a fair description of your position? If so, can something like Occupy not sustain itself within that model? Also, I really appreciate you putting yourself out there. You appear to be drawing very emotional responses in general to your work. :) Thanks.

Assuming these accounts of the Red Cross and FEMA are true, this has a strangely reactionary effect: The corruption or incompetence of traditional institutions in the midst of a crisis supports the right wing meme that government can't do anything. don't get me wrong - I think it is awesome that occupy is helping people in the communities where they live. this is not only the humane thing to do - it helps build solidarity and organization for something truly transformational. But we have to face the fact that it also further undermines the legitimacy of government.

I apologize - the word "yield" in the previous comment should read "wield."

I really like this idea. But I think it strategically misses something that capital has to yield as a weapon in response: Austerity. On the left, Debt and Austerity need to be explicitly linked as working together. And perhaps if default is a weapon for the masses austerity is the weapon of choice for the elite. Thus all the discussion of a "grand bargain" - enormous cuts to entitlements must be made in order to justify small increases in taxes for the wealthy. I think it is essentail that the left make this explicit - austerity and debt is being used to bludgeon us into submission.

That this could be published in the Washington Post is a good sign. To openly talk about redistribution would be unthinkable just a few years ago.

I usually like Henwood's take but psychoanalyzing Obama seems silly to me. Whatever his personality faults, he was able to overcome his "narcissism" enough to interact with people from all walks of life, getting him to the Presidency.What I think is more useful is Henwood's description of the structural problems of the Democratic party - they have two masters to serve. The elite for which they are beholden to for their money and power, and of course their "constituents" to whom they must pay lip service. In regards to what liberals (or at least "liberal politicians"" stand for - technocratic management of the austerity regime. If Obama is reelected he is far more likely to get his "grand bargain" than if Romney is elected. Obama can say I am preserving what I can of the welfare state in the face of Republican intransigence. But what argument can Romney offer that the democrats would accept. Their path back to power would necessitate that they fight entitlement cuts. And regarding what Obama believes in, come on. Obviously Obama believes in neoliberalism with a human face - or better austerity and diminished opportunities brought to us by a pleasant technocrat. This is why an organized left is so crucial today.

Just go my copy of the book yesterday.Can't wait to read it. Congratulations!

This is a really interesting exchange. I find it amazing that Zizek makes a positive reference to the French term for the future, avenir, which Derrida made a great deal out of in his later writing. I assume Zizek is aware of the reference - but perhaps I misunderstand his appropriation. Derrida also thought of it as representing a break in the present moment - in the sense of the future breaking up the current coordinates and opening up the present to something new. I think this is similar to Zizek's description of current uprisings as "signs from the future." These Communist signs from the future can "become actual only if we follow these signs – in other words, they are signs which paradoxically precede that of which they are signs." I think this absolutely correct. The question is how and in which way to follow the signs?

Thank you for posting this Jodi. while my experience of anarchists is a bit less "practical" I completely agree with her sentiment. I have been humbled and inspired by the efforts of regular people to dare to dream of another life - a life beyond capitalism. Despite reports to the contrary, collective effort to work toward the common good is alive and well. The zombie carcass of the current system cannot stand forever and efforts like OWS are the only thing that stands between us and fascism.