Notes from Occupied Melbourne, 2012
a) Why, it’s kicking off everywhere… except Melbourne
It’s been a wild year. After two to three years of seeming paralysis after the GFC, things kicked off. Indeed, as Paul Mason’s timely canvassing of the issue says, it appears to be kicking off everywhere.
Everywhere except Australia.
A pedal through Melbourne’s leafy north-east the other Sunday offered telling ride-by snapshots of middle-class Australia in 2012. On lower Heidelberg Road there’s a billboard advertising domain.com.au’s new iPad app, telling its punters ‘You’re not a property buyer, you’re a warrior in a battle for territory’ (?!); a few Ks up the road, the ‘Save Ivanhoe!’ campaign – signs on the plush, deep lawns of capacious interwar houses – reminds all passers by that ‘we’ oppose inappropriate development. But the most telling combo is just south of the Eastern, on Belmore Road, where the mausoleum bling of display home McMansions (with names like The Consort, the Ambassador, The Concubine), stretching from Box Hill to Kew, is punctuated by 100s upon 100s of dead CRT TVs. They’re everywhere: small and massive, old and new, many with cardboard signs saying ‘works fine’ and the remotes sticky taped to the top. Others lie face down on the nature strip besides curious baby magpies or reel silently against trees, their faces tagged up or smashed in. Who tags a dead TV? Thousands of people, apparently. Some have been there for months in the grass, soaking up the dog piss and the rain, waiting for the TV angels to swoop down and take them to TV heaven, or Lagos.
Middle-class suburban Australia in 2012 seems untouchably far from everything except itself, in which it remains totally, contentedly absorbed. When the weather’s good, you get the sense that things will be like this forever. Talking Heads said it: heaven really is a place, a where nothing, nothing ever happens. The countervoice says: ‘a storm is blowing in from Paradise’. Cyclones make it this far south when they’re made out of capital, when capital is built out of promises and premises that turn out to be false. I cycle past another sign, which reads ‘guard dogs patrol these premises’. We’ll need another decade or three to know what McMansion Australia was really made of. I have a feeling many of the CRTs will still be on the nature strip. But my sense is that, just like they still work fine for free-to-air, the TVs gathering in our streets can be viewed as a form of unwitting political assembly. In one sense they the real Occupy Melbourne, in that they do accurately represent the actions, interests and credit card transactions of the 99%.
Their presence says so much about Australia. Somehow it’s totally okay to throw out a TV, leave it on the street. We trust that someone will pick it up; sometimes hard rubbish do. Or dawn brigades of ageless Carnie-like men – the ones who monster the still dark stalls of Camberwell market of a Sunday – will spirit them away. Their presence also suggests, perhaps, that we trust that those who do pick our ex companions up will take them somewhere and treat them with the respect you would treat aged pet or parent. Put away quietly somewhere. Personally, their presence chills me, they’re sentinels from a future doom. ‘Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one catastrophe, which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet…’
b) we must begin to pose the question… sorry, what…?
On day one at the other Occupy Melbourne – the one that, as I wrote at the time, proved that no notionally ‘public space’ is genuinely public, when push came to shove – there was another Occupier sporting a handmade cardboard sign. This one carried the following message, from Tony Judt’s Ill Fares the Land:
“Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: Is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them. The materialistic and selfish quality of contemporary life is not inherent in the human condition. Much of what appears “natural” today dates from the 1980s: the obsession with wealth creation the cult of privatization and the private sector the growing disparities of rich and poor. And above all the rhetoric that accompanies these: uncritical admiration for unfettered markets disdain for the public sector the delusion of endless growth. We cannot go on living like this. The little crash of 2008 was a reminder that unregulated capitalism is its own worst enemy: sooner or later it must fall prey to its own excesses and turn again to the state for rescue. But if we do no more than pick up the pieces and carry on as before we can look forward to greater upheavals in years to come.”
How does Judt’s famous quote fare from a Melbourne nature strip? In conversations I’ve had since Occupy Melbourne, there has been little sympathy for the movement, outside the movement. Occupy, in Melbourne, in 2011?! Wall Street? Systemic issues of finance capitalism? Solidarity (without utility)? This line of argument is usually followed by some kind of profession of Australian exceptionalism: Australian capitalism is properly regulated (just look at our wonderful banks); Australia has sailed through the last several recessions, will sail through this depression (we *are* the Lucky Country); we flog dirt to China (this last one the trump card). My sense is that no one who has seen the TVs as I have could possibly feel that way. But then, my sense is that very few people – especially the millions who have left theirs on the nature strip – have even ‘seen’ the TVs they watched for so many years, the living room occupant who spent more time with the family than anyone else, who really kept the terror and the loneliness at bay. Does Judt’s sentiment have a space in this room? Is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world?’ These are all big questions, social questions, which is why, according to the bearer of that piece of cardboard, they were the questions that ought to occupy Occupy Melbourne. But Melbourne is preoccupied. ‘I’m not a property buyer, I’m a warrior in a battle for territory’. ‘Save Ivanhoe!’ My kitchen rules.
Back to the world in 2012, about which Paul Mason wrote the following:
As the events recede and solidify it becomes clear that 2011 was, above all, a cultural revolution: a loss of fear in the dictatorships of north Africa; a loss of apathy among educated youth in Europe, Latin America and the US. And the revolution consisted of this: a mass rejection of the values dominant during 20 years of freemarket capitalism.
Everywhere except Australia.
c) nothin’ goin’ on but the rent
Zizek has been off form for years now – especially his sort of pathetic appearance on Q&A. (Or is this just proof that Q&A will stifle anything of intellectual interest? I’ll take that as a comment.) But in a recent piece for LRB he tightened up and came correct with the following assessment of contemporary capitalism. The following should be taken for its heuristic value; it’s not the whole truth or ‘reality’, but it does help gain an invaluable critical purchase on Melbourne’s various Occupations and Preoccupations. On the one side are the rentiers:
How did Bill Gates become the richest man in America? His wealth has nothing to do with Microsoft producing good software at lower prices than its competitors, or ‘exploiting’ its workers more successfully (Microsoft pays its intellectual workers a relatively high salary). Millions of people still buy Microsoft software because Microsoft has imposed itself as an almost universal standard, practically monopolising the field, as one embodiment of what Marx called the ‘general intellect’, by which he meant collective knowledge in all its forms, from science to practical knowhow. Gates effectively privatised part of the general intellect and became rich by appropriating the rent that followed.
On the other side, the structurally unemployed, the superfluous:
A consequence of the rise in productivity brought about by the exponentially growing impact of collective knowledge is a change in the role of unemployment. It is the very success of capitalism (greater efficiency, raised productivity etc) which produces unemployment, rendering more and more workers useless: what should be a blessing – less hard labour needed – becomes a curse. Or, to put it differently, the chance to be exploited in a long-term job is now experienced as a privilege.
If everyone wants to become a rentier in Australia – a successful warrior who can then battle from the security of their castle (perhaps by hurling enormous CRT TVs off the ramparts at the tradies building the McMansions next door) – it’s because they know, in their hearts, that they risk falling into the second category. Large numbers of people now live off rents (if they were sensible, they saw the writing on the wall post ’83 or earlier, and provided for their nearly endless retirement in this way); large (and growing) numbers of their kids the latter. And in Australia, conditions are still sufficiently sound that there are even, still, significant numbers of real jobs for young people. But will they remain, given that anyone who works with the ‘ends’ of intellectual property is going to be wiped out – either downloaded and shared out of a viable existence, or locked up by the FBI? Well, what do you expect from a bad paradigm, predicated on an ontological error?
What Bill Gates understands is what the ‘ndrangheta understands is what The Greek understood: the way to survive in this conjuncture is to occupy a structurally integral nodal point on a distributive network. Making things is for chumps. And don’t be a ‘creative’, whatever you do. creatives produce content, and the content of content is indifferent. All content has to do is provide more content. So back to work. More: never get pegged as a ‘community’. Communities care, and care is unpaid, can be defunded and eliminated. That’s the assumption underpinning David Cameron’s Big Society. What you want to be is either a keyholder, a code owner, or a gatekeeper, someone who gets ‘em comin’ and gets ‘em goin’, without having to do the dirty work at either end. Hell, be a landlord, and have the key, code, or gate minded on your behalf. The following quote, from Das’ book on capital, tells us you everything you need to know about the world now.
At an internal conference in the early 1990s, John Thornton, a Goldman Sachs managing director, outlined a business model. Eschewing the traditional PowerPoint presentation, Thornton used a felt pen to draw dots on a white broad. ‘These are the important people in the world.’ Thornton then drew overlapping circles around the dots. ‘Inside these circles are the people they know, the deals they do, the ideas they are thinking about. Pretty much everything that happens in the world, happens in these circles.’ Pointing to where most of the circles overlapped, Thornton summed up investment banking: ‘This is where I want to be. That is our strategy’ (Das 2011, 87)
Goldman Sachs might be a ‘vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity’, but they’re smart. They get it. They play it as it lays. You’ve got to hand it to them. You probably already have.
d) Occupy Yourself (with yourself)
Perhaps we all ‘get it’ though – but where does this leave ‘us’? Preoccupied, guilty, heavily invested in The Battle for Ivanhoe, or trying to find our own private Ivanhoe by way of a seachange, a treechange, or the Me Project. Above all the Me Project. Over the past decade, the two big lefty movements – of questionable leftness – have been ethical and aesthetic. In Australia, the former produced large numbers of Singerians (followers of Peter Singer); the latter produced local variants of the hipster. Whether ethical or aesthetic, the common move was away from the commons, away from the polis, away from politics. ‘We’ was in retreat, on retreat. It was a preoccupation of self with self. This is especially true when it concerned itself with others, in the case of Singerians, because, as I see it, their giving is predicated on guilt. It’s a guilt which, because of the felicific calculus, they can reduce by a certain amount by giving a certain amount. Singerians are unblinkingly well intentioned. They are also, mostly, very humourless, because righteous. And will not found a viable future politics.
Paul Mason’s article, quoted above, also states that ’2012 opens with a pause’. I agree, and I invite you all to use this pause – a luxuriant pause, in middle-class Australia – to think. Fundamentally, I invite you all to occupy yourself with yourself*. This doesn’t mean what you think it does. I’m not offering an invitation to further preoccupation, or full-blown narcissistic self absorption. And personally I’ve had enough of territorial warriors and anxious worriers. As I see it, occupying ourselves with ourselves means no longer shirking – as political – the political questions and problems of our day. Most of us suck at politics, but it’s because we’re out of practice. Politics is a practice we’ve been out of… so we feel shy and embarrassed even talking about it. And avoid the topic. Or feel shrilly vindicated by our own values, without really understanding what they are, as I wrote of Australia Day. Back to the Me Project, back into ethics, back into aesthetics, back to the iThing, retreat, retreat… But remember this: we keep on retreating and bailing out of the hard conversations, but the world keeps changing. The TVs pile up. The growing gyre keeps turning. We keep sucking, but so too does Goldman Sachs. From Judt to Ivanhoe to the nature strip, we should try to understand the place we occupy in the city. Democratic politics? What is a demos, what is kratos, what is a polis – what was Goldman’s role in the Greek crisis (and why is it never reported, in spite of the mantra of ‘profligate Greeks’)? Why did the oligarchs kill Socrates? What is public? Who owns the nature strip? Where do the CRT TVs actually end up? We have a world to occupy ourselves with.








Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
How?
It seems clear what I ought to avoid doing – throwing away television sets in the eastern suburbs – but how ought I occupy myself with myself?
I should try to understand the place ‘we’ occupy in the city? How?
I can’t find a ‘we’ anywhere…..How can one be political, when the very possibility of community doesn’t seem to exist?
@ Tobes: this is a conversation – social relations, asking political questions – right here. It’s not much, it’s a start.
So let me ask you: how might you occupy yourself with yourself, without shirking or retreating?
I think you have good ideas… I know you do… let’s discuss ‘em.
Well, to be frank, I am deep in retreat and more or less out of constructive ideas.
Do you mean to say that your ‘how’ is more or less discursive? That occupying oneself with oneself implies speaking politically in the public (cyber) sphere?
With whom should one speak, and what ought one say, such that it is neither aesthetic nor a retreat, but fundamentally political?
I think that maybe discourse is a pretty cheap solution to the kinds of problematics you point to so well. A genuinely political response surely entails forms of action which are collective, shared, beyond the locus of the individual…..
So the question remains, how?
‘Some assembly required’.
Let’s say this: Singerians need to lighten up and stop feeling guilty, to see the systemicity of what they take on as a personal burden to be expunged with donations to NGOs and abstention from meat and non organic vegetables.
‘Hipsters’ (to the extent it’s still a viable category) have actually done wonderful things for the inner cities of the OECD: fixies, breakfast cafes, excellent niche bars, live venues outside the whoreful circuit of most club promoters. Their gentrification is infinitely preferable to the yuppies who follow in their wake (okay, so one becomes the other and it’s a grey scale, but…) But their typical need for cool, usually effected through some kind of ironising distanciation – inc/esp. disavowal of being a hipster – might prevent the warmth and openness necessary for politics proper to unfold directly.
But there are potentials in both these ways, surely? The hipster component who got scared off Occupy were surely far more interesting than the majority of the Trades Hall socialists and their misguided Max Brenner obsession.
In fact, is it not the case that Occupy Melbourne revealed it’s the Trades Hall socialists who are irredeemably tied to their bizarre 19th century repertoire of contention?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repertoire_of_contention
On the other hand, would the Singerians and hipsters have stuck it out, got beaten up?
But was that the best way in any case?
You’re an adult, so far be it from me to tell you what you ought to do, but being out of ideas strikes me as lacking audacity, courage. Doesn’t seem that you’re showing your more capable side with a comment like that.
I mean, c’mon, just get out there and talk to people for starters. Then follow through. Then be patient. It will lead somewhere. Some assembly required.
All human errors are impatience, a premature breaking off of methodical procedure, an apparent fencing-in of what is apparently at issue. – Kafka
…I just realised I quoted Kafka to instill hope in someone…
The hipster is of course a very slippery signifier – but I take it from your description that you mean a particular kind of aesthetic relationship to reality.
But isn’t the hipster an embodiment of precisely the kind of aesthetic retreat you brought into question in your post? I see the hipster phenomenon as an entirely de-politicised project. If they represent the best political response to the trauma of discarded televisions in the eastern burbs (and all that they represent)…..then we are pretty doomed.
As for the Singerians – well, at least they care about consequences and act upon those cares. They clearly have the political capacity to change things; and in some domains, have been very successful. Think battery hens and factory farming. Or further back to those ‘radical’ utilitarians, the abolishment of slavery and the establishment of womens voting rights.
And those Trades Hall socialists – indeed, some were misguided. But many were on the ball, energetic, engaged, brazen……political. They could never be accused of being de-politicised, and given your imperative to become political, I am surprised that you argue against them in favour of the hipster. Moreover, they tend to understand the problem rather well, perhaps too well.
So perhaps I give my own particular response through these somewhat arbitrary categories – the solution is surely in collective, sustained, robust political action. Riding a fixie to a funky cafe may be warming, and may facilitate a certain kind of openness (to whoever else is also dressed well) but I do not see it giving rise to a politics of genuine transformation.
The point was the potential. I don’t see potential with many Trades Hall types, I see the Judean People’s Front.
…hipster per se is over (it was always-already over). But it’s becoming something else. More potential.
“a politics of genuine transformation.” – transformation for the …? What kinds of horizons you talking there?
Fixies are more subversive that leaflets. They make people want fixies…. even a utilitarian with no aesthetic attunement can see… the utility…
In fact, just doing your commute on a bicycle is participating in meaningful change far more effective than, say protesting Max Brenner.
The commute just asks you for your tiny contribution; you don’t feel significant, but then, you don’t have to inflict righteousness…
Key problem of our generation
‘Nothing I say/do makes any difference.’
‘I want to do something meaningful, change the world’ (either that, or my job sucks and isn’t good enough)
A politics of transformation is more likely to start with a good breakfast… again: some assembly required.
Refrain: what kinds of assembly are the aforementioned groups capable of?
I just see this as the total abandonment of a genuine politics – for an individual ethic of desire. Your proposition could only work if everyone starts desiring the right kind of things at the right kind of time – but what makes a particular desire right (politically) in the first instance? This seems to be predicated on some kind of cosmic order which harmonises these individualised ‘wants’ into some shared social-political reality…..does such a cosmic order exist?
Indeed. It is called capitalism.
So we should resist capitalism by practicing a more aesthetically aware version of it?
Fixies are in now – that is kind of politically good; but synths, moustaches and skinny jeans are at best politically neutral.
No, I’m firmly with the Trades Hall lefties on this one. There are deep battles taking place in domains of labour and production, and they can only be won if they are fought. A good example is the Qantas war. There is a great deal at stake for industrial relations per se. These battles will not be won or lost by hipsters on fixies.
A politics of transformation presupposes that structural problems are correctly diagnosed, and forms of resistance to them are established not by individuals in relationship to their breakfast, but by groups imbued with a common understanding, a common purpose, a common cause.
Both the ripe potential of occupy and its swift failure occurred on precisely this axis.
I would say that the core problem with this age, is that our generation cannot even fathom the possibility of a commons. Maybe because we’re all so busy distinguishing our styles from each other and cultivating a perfect ethos of desire and aesthetic hipness.
I certainly was not saying ‘let’s be hipsters’; if that’s what you took from what I said, please re-read what I said.
I would prefer to let the details inter-act, but at risk of a simplifying condensation, let me say that where I see the greater potential is in the creative uses of such spaces as there are, for a range of purposes.
Let me ask you: if you see such solidarity with Trades Hall types (in this typology herein TH), why don’t you join them (if you haven’t)?
In relation to Qantas… well, one the space of the global opens up – and it’s a space which only capital occupies, not labour – you’re stuffed. ‘Competitive advantage’ arguments trump; it’s rational according to the rationale, no? CEO chases maximisation of shareholder value, receives bonus. Consumers refuse to pay more.
And in this case, that will mean lousier breakfasts on Qantas.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-16/qantas-catering-jobs-adelaide/3833722?section=sa
So: breakfast can also be a matter of collective concern and negotiation (and likewise be subject to outsourcing and offshoring).
Context matters – ergo there are scenes and spaces in which fixies and breakfasts are subversive, and others in which they are not, no? But without a good breakfast (and a place to have it) we all are and feel worse off. You notice this when you travel to cities that have no breakfast cafes (Tokyo springs to mind).
As I see it (okay, this is obviously far more complex than this), the failure of Occupy occurred precisely because two groups of people behaved thoroughly according to type; there was absolutely nothing subversive about that.
It’s just as conservative/habitual for protesters to be kettled and shoved as it is for the Victorian police to kettle and shove. Here, neither group showed much of a talent for creative forms of assembly; the police seemed rather better disciplined in showing their preferred ‘shape of things’.
It’s a poor way of apprehending (and/or arresting), in my view, of the far more interesting potentials that nonetheless – in spite of everything – exist in cities like Melbourne.
Likewise, I think it’s a misunderstanding to say that there is no ‘common’ taking place between, say, hipsters or Singerians or Victorias finest and/or Qantas pilots, and/or that every consumer is a hyperatomized individual totally subsumed within their own quest for consumable aesthetic perfection. There’s much more going on than that in the city…
…I take it you want one Common?
I would say it’s a mistake to say that capital is total (it’s not, it’s general); and I would say it’s extremely dangerous to want one Common.
Could it be that a desire for utopia might prevent imperfect assembly in and occupation of those various topoi that there are, with a view to realising their potentials?
Maybe I misread you – but maybe you are being somewhat vague.
It seems to me that after listing in considerable detail many unacceptable problematics, you raise the question: in response, how can we avoid aesthetic retreat or utilitarian consequentialism or 19th century socialist conservatism.
The issue at stake seems to me to be ‘how can a genuinely political response manifest, which is not one of these forms, but not necessarily distinct from those forms?”
Your answer to that seems to me to be twofold: firstly, a politics of desire – let people do their creative thing, and a certain range of political responses will organically arise. This may be social and communal, despite my claims that it is essentially individualistic. Secondly, (and this seems a later addition, on the back of our dialogue) a politics of opening up space; seeing the context and allowing a certain range of actions to unfold. I suppose the two are quite deeply connected. If I have not characterised this sufficiently, perhaps you could, with some precision, explain what you mean.
I still find all of this profoundly unsatisfactory. It seems to be predicated (implicitly) on some kind of intuitive or anarchic model of social-political transformation; non-normative, non-dialectical and seemingly non-antagonistic. You point to the failure of occupy, and cite the entrenched dialectical stuggles as the main reason – but you fail to recognise the kinds of transformations that have occurred on the basis of that ‘conservative’ dialectic.
That is, the resistances and struggles clearly produced a certain range of resonances in the mainstream political world – there is now a discourse of inequality, mainstream anger at banking profits etc. Utopic visions and “one” commons? Of course not, that’s not the real story of Trades Hall; in fact that is something of unfair imputation.
The real story is collective intentionality – properly directed towards particular ends; and some level of real organisation. I am arguing that political transformation requires those things – because that which is producing the problem of discarded television sets have both of those things. One cannot resist and transform that problem by avoiding normativity, organisation, intentionality and how these arise in various kinds of commons.
Moreover, if we must find a root cause for why Occupy Melbourne did not succeed, I would point to the fact far too many people of our generation were thinking too deeply about their breakfasts, and not deeply enough about social-political transformation.
I would go as far as to say that the desire, enjoyment and reification of baked eggs in the inner city is part of the problem, not the solution.
Some assembly required:
Yates McKee, ‘The Arts of Occupation’, The Nation, 11 December 2011;
http://www.thenation.com/article/165094/arts-occupation
Richard Sennett on hipster unions:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=1341
And Latour’s ideas on this tip:
a) Politics is no longer limited to humans and in- corporates the many issues to which they are attached;
b) Objects become things, that is, when matters of fact give way to their complicated entangle- ments and become matters of concern;
c) Assembling is no longer done under the already existing globe or dome of some earlier tradition of building virtual parliaments;
d) The inherent limits imposed by speech impairment, cognitive weaknesses and all sorts ohandicaps are no longer denied but prostheses are accepted instead;
e) It’s no longer limited to properly speaking parliaments but extended to the many other
assemblages in search of a rightful assembly;
f) The assembling is done under the provisional and fragile Phantom Public, which no longer claims to be equivalent to a Body, a Leviathan or a State;
g) And, finally, Dingpolitik may become possible when politics is freed from its obsession with the time of Succession. Such is the experiment that we have undertaken with this show and catalog. Needless to say, the authors assembled here don’t have to agree with one another or with this introduction! But accepting a fragile and provisional roof to probe one another’s attachment to things? Perhaps.
If fundamentalism is the conviction that mediations may be bypassed without cost, then it’s the ultimate “ding-less” mode of doing politics. In the end, one question really has interested us: Can fundamentalism be undone? When will the horsemen of the apocalypse stop meddling in politics?
Full chapter: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/96-DINGPOLITIK-GB.pdf
and site: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/208
So don’t anybody claim they have nothing to Occupy themselves with..
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.