佔領生活在中環

相機人前言:
很好奇,十個月的營隊生活,會孕育出什麽樣的社群?沒有領袖、不以投票形式作議決,一個強調溝通、共識、協作的團隊,究竟建立了怎麽樣的生活?似乎這些不同職業、不同學歷、不同階層、不同意識形態的人慢慢形成了一個組織鬆散而關係緊密的部落。這種緊密的關係,內裏似乎是深入的互相了解和默契,並且變成了組織的骨幹。這種組織形態不單令「佔領中環」有更大的空間作種種不同的嘗試,亦實踐了議會制度外的另一種民主 — 一種強調對個人尊重的民主生活,一種香港議會制度所欠缺的文化內涵。

2012年8月的兩個晚上,我在「佔領中環」的營地擺下了相機和閃光燈,邀請佔領者結伴拍攝。最後,由他們揀選相片,並為相片加上文字。

柏齊
26-08-2012


我們在10月16日一起來,就再沒有走過。


一張橫額,可以用來劃清界線,卻也可以用來連結彼此﹣﹣我們曾經為「反對資本主義」的橫額用甚麼布來寫而爭論:花布?黑底白字?我們各有美學,確有差異。但,有乜緊要得過嘗試與共存?


一個睡在地上,一個睡在帳幕,一個睡在沙發上。沒有佔領中環,他們的習慣都應該沒有分別,就是不會認識對方。


兆基抗議書院有老有嫩


在吃人兼殘殺動物的社會裡,我們還有選擇﹣中環的素食者同台。


本想找個地方在中午和下班休息,點知成為習慣,每天都會過來聊天。


「哎吔,該煨囉……係佔領中環搭上左」


在髮端嘴唇間交換張狂


女性主義者?


我們仨各自建立關係。三人一起只有一次經驗,那時我們去醫院探他,為了讓他可以抽煙,就一起騙護士帶他外出。


我們輪流睡在同一個帳幕。他回來時我找其他地方睡;她睡著了,我便睡在沙發。無視蜚短流長,我們共用帳幕。


用國際歌平息一切糾紛。有一個晚上,兩個叔叔為了「這世界是否有人餓死」而大打出手,我們知道其中一個叔叔喜歡唱歌,開始唱國際歌的時候,就停手了。


男人的情誼從一隻錶開始


魚樂無窮:有一個晚上,他告訴我在世界各地釣魚的經歷。總有一天,我們要一起釣魚去。


凌晨三點五點,我們離開中環,問號伴隨著我們緩慢的步伐,被帶到街上車中家內。

Posted in 相片集 Photos | Leave a comment

「佔領點收科」討論會

日期︰8月25日(星期六)
時間︰下午三時
地點︰佔領中環
講者︰余在思,陳可樂,覃俊基,陳寧,周思中

佔領中環持續了差不多一年,若果說這是一場「運動」,它(/我們?)未達成、未觸及的肯定有不少。而「佔領」此一形式或共治社區作為理想社會的試驗當中遇到的難題亦有待充份討論。

8月27日當然不會是佔領的終結,但或許是一個時機去檢視其成功/失敗之處,看能否為再佔領或日後抗爭提供一些參考及力量。

佔領,不只在中環,更不只是現存在那裏十零廿人的事。我們一如以往,期待你來加入、投放、交流、轉化。

Posted in 活動公告 Events | Leave a comment

An Open Letter to All from Occupy Central

On May the 29th, 2012, three HSBC representatives paid Occupy Central a visit to see if they could interest us in an informal deal to evacuate the premises. Claiming to be members of the charity and law (a rather odd combination, indeed) department of the bank, they informed us that we were on privately-owned property, and that our presence was preventing them from holding the ‘charitable events’ that the HSBC basement is usually designated for. To entice us to consider their offer, they offered us assistance if we were considering leaving.

Following this rather strange encounter, the bank issued a request to the High Court on June the 22nd, appealing for an order that would formally permit the basement to be cleared on the grounds of proprietary right. We received a stack of documents related to this appeal on the same day, and discovered that three middle-aged men, loosely related to the movement, had been summoned to the High Court for infringing upon HSBC’s hallowed ground, as well as an anonymous band of ‘occupiers’, whose ‘names remain unknown’. This category, we imagine, includes anyone who has ventured into the space for any amount of time.

We would like to declare, without any hesitation whatsoever, that we have no intentions of leaving.

From the 15th of October, 2011, we have made it clear that we have no regard for the strictures of property that HSBC invokes. In this space, we have created a laboratory in which a different form of life can be invented and elaborated upon, a rehabilitation centre in which the casualties of capitalism can exchange experiences, ideas, laughter and friendship. We have created what we would like to call an ‘impossible space’, one that exposes and demonstrates the elementary point that space, when liberated from property laws and freed for common use, opens itself up to new possibilities, encounters and experiences. Prior to the occupation, bodies would course through this passageway, a continuous surge of bodies in transit to their office cubicles, to their automobiles, to their claustrophobic apartments. Now, we have established a point of convergence that attracts all of the explosive energies that resist the unstoppable flow of alienated life, so that a collective form of thinking and acting can crystallize.

Sometimes, it is difficult for passers-by to understand that this space, having been freed from every concept of property, private (which would mean that it is owned by a person or a group) or public (which would mean that it is owned by government authorities, its use defined and policed by the state). This space is common, which means that everyone who has sat down with us and shared it with us, whether they have attended a general assembly, taught a course in our Free School or held an event in the occupation, has had a hand in determining the way it is used, experienced and imagined. Others make use of the couches, the library and the guitars on their lunch breaks, and we have given shelter, cheer and company to countless couch-surfers and wanderers passing through this sad and bewildering city.

All of this sounds very romantic, but we are well aware that along the way we have made a good number of mistakes, some of which are irreparable. Occupy Central has not issued any demands, for the simple reason that its form is not determined by any predetermined content. It is not a ‘protest’ movement, if you think of a protest movement as being ‘about’ a specific issue (for example, certain tendencies in Occupy Wall Street have transformed an open and dynamic experiment into a lobby for the regulation of the finance system and the introduction of measures like the Tobin Tax). For us, the form is the content and the medium is the message- to occupy is to seize direct control over the space and the time that capitalism has taken from us, so that we can find new and collective uses for them. Ten months later, we remain at the beginning of this vast adventure, one which we would like to spread across the urban fabric. Maybe this all sounds rather vague, and we can’t really help that. What is absolutely clear, however, is that we cannot abandon what we have built. We will not allow the rich sense of possibility that has opened itself up in the heart of this city to be sealed up again.

So, we would like to declare once more that we do not accept the bank’s suggestion, and we refuse any ‘assistance’ that they might extend to us. We are well aware that this act of diplomacy, this pathetic pretense of ‘dialogue’ that HSBC are offering us is shot through with undertones of violence and coercion. We are prepared for the eventuality of a confrontation, and would like to state that any use of force on their part will not dissolve the immaterial bonds that we have formed over the last ten months, nor will it discourage us from beginning once more, from nothing, just as we did last October. We would also like to announce our decision, as the clandestine and anonymous band of ‘occupiers’ whom HSBC has summoned from the shadows, that we will NOT stand trial before the law on August the 13th. Besides the fact that we have nothing but contempt for those who would presume to judge us, as well as the institution that they derive their authority from, we have much better things to do than spend our evenings probing the law to discover faults and loopholes. We only have so much time and so much energy, and it would be much more worthwhile for us to carry on playing music, conversing, sharing knowledges, skills and experiences, forming a nucleus to strike against this monstrous order with all the humor, irreverence and imagination that we are capable of… just as we have been doing the last 300 odd days.

As always, we are anxious for you to join us. Consider this an open call to collaborators and conspirators everywhere, all of you who refuse to allow this break in space in time to disappear, swallowed up into oblivion.

OCCUPY CENTRAL

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

佔領中環反清場記者招待會+活動日

日期︰8月10日(星期五)
時間︰15:00 – 21:00
地點︰佔領中環 (匯豐銀行總行地下)

就匯豐銀行向法庭申請清場令要求佔領中環離開匯豐總行地面空間一事,佔領中環將召開記者會,並進行一連串活動,打鑼打鼓,打死唔走。

是日流程:
15:00-16:00 打羽毛球,行為藝術
16:00 記者招待會
17:30 開飯
19:00 尚盧高達《一切安好》放映

來玩吧!
《一切安好》劇情簡介 ︰

一對從事傳媒業的知識分子的感情生活和發生在1972年五月的一家香腸製造廠的罷工事件,他們和工廠經理一起被工人堵在辦公室裡兩天兩夜。在影片中,我們看到和聽到經理、共產黨工會代表、”新左翼”領導人、普通工人講述他們的見解;看到工廠的作業流程;看到蒙當拍攝廣告的工作,聽到他講述自己從68年起的經歷和失落;看到方達作為美國廣播公司駐法國代表的播音工作,也聽到她的失敗和煩躁;看到青年激進分子的一次超市搶劫和警察的暴力鎮壓;看到法國社會各階層的”標準像”;也看到蒙當和方達共同生活中的爭吵與困境。甚至他們的愛情生活也構成了時代的轉喻:二人相識相愛於68年五月時對一次罷工的參與,又在72年五月的這次罷工中發現個人生活的破裂。

Posted in 活動公告 Events | Leave a comment

堅守中環 — 反清場事先聲明



2012年5月29日早上時份,佔領中環首次收到清場的「軟性警告」,三名匯豐銀行的成員非正式地與部份佔領中環的成員商討「自願撤離安排」。他們自稱是慈善部和法律部的員工,向在場的佔領中環成員表示,由於匯豐銀行總行地下,乃屬匯豐銀行所擁有,匯豐銀行期望佔領中環可「讓出空間」,讓他們可「批出」此空地舉辦不同的慈善活動。他們還表示,若佔領中環願意主動讓出空間,匯豐可對佔領中環「搬走」給予協助。

我們事先聲明,我們不會放棄佔領。

2011年10月15日至今,佔領中環已經持續八個月,我們拉起反對資本主義的橫額,在此聚合、討論、共識、分享、行動。在這中環價值的核心地帶,我們嘗試劃出一個「不可能的空間」,令其不再是「有待批准」的活動場所,為其重新定義。我們在此放置傢俱,搭建帳篷,設立圖書館,嘗試建立共治社區,以及一個反抗的聚腳點。不同的民間團體和對資本主義下的種種制度和現況抱有質疑的朋友,為了實踐理想世界的想像,在佔領中環裡互相認識、在活動裡連結、在討論裡一同思考、在針對資本主義社會不公的行動上互相支援。

除了作為反思和行動的連結點,佔領中環亦是開放、公共的空間。附近的上班族、星期天的外籍家傭、路過的途人、相識的、陌生的,只要你願意進入佔領中環的社區,也可一同參與、分享這裡的佔領經驗,使用這裡的傢俱、閱讀圖書館裡的書籍、分享音樂會裡的音樂、在歌聲中起舞,一同為這片空間創造更多的可能。

我們必需承認,這一切還在萌芽階段:反資的另途生活、反抗者的橫向連結、公共空間的各種可能…。我們在佔領,也同時在學習佔領,實驗尚未結果,革命還未開始。但我們知道,扎根、持續走下去,才有可能,看到反抗的「另途」。

佔領中環不會接受匯豐銀行「自願撤離」的建議,也拒絕接受任何來自匯豐銀行關於「搬走」的協助。若然匯豐銀行採取進一步行動,甚或使用武力來清場,佔領中環成員將會再一次對匯豐銀行總行下的空間進行佔領。佔領中環作為佔領運動的一部份,整個社區的形式及發展也尚未定形,除了星期二及星期六晚上九時的大會、自由學社(free school)的活動,及下列的種種,我們還期待更多行動及活動的發生。

我們在此呼籲:所有相信「空間應由自己定義」的團體和個人,一同參與、交流、創造,共同實現反對資本主義的佔領。

有關清場的事態發展,佔領中環將會在大會、專頁和網誌上公佈。 各界傳媒如欲對以上事件或佔領中環進行採訪,可聯絡以下成員:
黃衍仁(電話:9313 1940)/tiv wong(電話:6037 2057)

在「佔領中環」這空間發生過:

10月
音樂會 / 遊 gig show
音樂會 / Hidden Agenda
音樂堂 / 阿珏
瑜珈工作坊 / 嘉源
佔領中環論壇:點解要反資本主義?/ 左翼21
填詞工作坊 /
佔領經驗分享會 / 左翼21
雷曼經驗分享會 / 雷曼苦主大聯盟
行動中的崇拜 / 一班關心社會的基督徒
音樂會 / Hidden Agenda
1936年西班牙革命講座 /陳寧
阿根庭佔廠運動記錄片/左翼21
中上環導賞團/ 柏齊
<憤怒之源>放映/ 社運電影節
我在佔領中環分享交流會 / 陽光時務 x 佔領中環

11月
禮物經濟通識課/ 許煜
交流會 / 活化廳 x 我們家 x 佔領中環
「詩歌佔領中環」朗誦會 / 字花
快樂廚房 /香港和平婦女與一代人公社
動物:資本主義中最弱勢講座 / 動物地球
社運中的靈性軌跡 / 余在思
自製薄餅+意粉工作坊 / 小明
農村武裝青年音樂會 / Hidden Agenda
「硬食、位置、許願」藝術、詩歌之夜 / one love tribe
禮物經濟通識課 / 許煜
禮物墟 / 佔領中環
「出賣牙買加」放映會 /
「布爾喬亞重佔城市中心」放映會 / terry
禁核嚎 HOWL Live / 郭達年

12月
禮物墟/佔領中環
拆禮物音樂會/佔領中環
禮物墟 / 佔領中環

1月
自由學社開幕禮 / 佔領中環
午夜藍特備吹水會︰色慾情陷夜中環 / 午夜藍 x 佔領中環
BREATH, MOVEMENT & YOGA/One Love Tribe
「告到爛哂」音樂會 / 佔領中環
「告到爛哂」音樂會 / 佔領中環

2月
居港權音樂藝術聚集 / 甘仔與lenny

3月
交換故事 / 黃懷琰

4月
自由學社學期中聚會 / 佔領中環
《素人之亂.西日本作戰》放映會 / 江仔
東亞諸眾峰會:「革命後之世界」/活化廳

5月
國際OT日派包行動 / 佔領中環
身體吶喊工作坊 / 這一代的六四
《不是長毛,不是切.古華拉》放映會 / 這一代的六四
城市烏托邦實地考察 / 香港批判地理學會
香港可以流浪嗎?吹水會 / 豪仔

6月
流浪看 分享會 / 豪仔

自由學社(Free School)舉辦過的課堂,部分仍在進行中:

本能。療癒
香港 hip hop 簡史與導賞
禮物考察研發小組
甚麼是數學,不如重新認識
沖洗黑白菲林工作坊
不是一個人寫的微型小說工作坊
Flash Projection 教學
從法語文化看社會公義
Anyone can play 結他班
瑜伽伸展
藝術與革命:美學、詩意與起義讀書組(實現會社合辦)
繪畫探討“價值”
離晒大譜英文班
「行動者修練」工作坊
攝影同好吹水會

以往的文章:

佔領中環 – 自由學社聲明
http://www.inmediahk.net/%E4%BD%94%E9%A0%98%E4%B8%AD%E7%92%B0-%E8%87%AA%E7%94%B1%E5%AD%B8%E7%A4%BE%E8%81%B2%E6%98%8E

「唔該,請問民主擺係邊?」佔領中環325聲明
http://www.inmediahk.net/%E3%80%8C%E5%94%94%E8%A9%B2%EF%BC%8C%E8%AB%8B%E5%95%8F%E6%B0%91%E4%B8%BB%E6%93%BA%E4%BF%82%E9%82%8A%EF%BC%9F%E3%80%8D-%E4%BD%94%E9%A0%98%E4%B8%AD%E7%92%B0325%E8%81%B2%E6%98%8E

《要求平反,不如造反》 – 佔領中環六四聲明
http://www.inmediahk.net/%E3%80%8A%E8%A6%81%E6%B1%82%E5%B9%B3%E5%8F%8D%EF%BC%8C%E4%B8%8D%E5%A6%82%E9%80%A0%E5%8F%8D%E3%80%8B-%E4%BD%94%E9%A0%98%E4%B8%AD%E7%92%B0%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E8%81%B2%E6%98%8E

Posted in 文宣 statements | Leave a comment

FM101、佔領中環聲援泰歷聲明

當統治階級又再一次把「法治精神」的真面目揭露出來,我們清白但將被宣告「有罪」。

FM101成員泰歷(Derrick Benig)於2011年10月1日國殤遊行中,在中聯辦因見阿牛突然被拘捕,意圖突圍上前救援,與警察發生衝突,並因此被控兩條襲警罪,控罪為《警隊條例》第63 條。

資產階級的「法律」不單只保障了資本家合法地剝削勞動人民,讓資本家能夠合法地壟斷生產資料;還不斷製造和鞏固統治階級所掌握的「國家權力』,在這之下,每個人的行為都必須符合統治階級的規範。所以,每當統治階級和資產階級受到挑戰時,國家機器便會不遺餘力的壓迫反抗者,法律讓國家機器的舉動都變得合法。所謂的法治精神,就是要法庭作出有利統治階級的判決。

在很多的示威場合裡面,警方都會加設不必要的阻礙、規限,導致示威者不得不作出反抗。最常見的例子就是拒絕開放示威路線的行車線,致使示威群眾必須衝擊警方防線,好使示威得以繼續進行。
在泰歷一案當中,警方無理拘捕阿牛,泰歷等示威者上前聲援,最後發生衝突。期間示威者推撞鐵馬以及與警方發生肢體碰撞。這些在現實中可能只是普通不過的反射動作,而在衝突的反抗中,卻會被定為罪行!所以,「衝突」不只是存在於警察與示威者之間,更在於統治階級與反抗者之間。

在六月十號悼念李旺陽的遊行當中,示威者與警方發生衝突。在衝突當中其中一位示威者被警察大力拉扯頭髮。[1]但事件卻不了了之,相反,如果示威者與警察發生輕微的肢體碰撞,示威者卻可能會面臨「襲警」的指控。
在英美日等地也曾發生過類似的事件。2010年的秋天,英國倫敦有上萬人反對大學學費調漲的遊行。其中一位示威者Alfie Meadows被警察以警棍襲擊頭部至腦出血,命在旦夕。不久之後Meadows卻以被告的身份被傳召上庭,連同數十名學生被控告「暴力脫序(Violent Disorder)」。[2]英國警方名義上有對Meadows的受傷進行內部調查,但在調查中途卻先被停止了,因為另一邊廂警方先指控了Meadows及另外幾名學生。最後打傷Meadows的警察不用負上任何責任,但Meadows卻要面臨起訴[3]。
在向傾斜資產階級的司法制度下,我們必須時刻證明自己清白而安份,因為我們不會知道自己何時成為統治者要整治的對象。

作為國家機器的一部份,統治階級所定的司法制度付予法庭權力,在未判決之前即時將被告還押拘留所,即時剝奪了被告人的人身自由。無權無勢的低下階層,卻經常受到法庭的過份判決或不接納保釋要求。但如果角色轉換到知名人士、公眾人物或有錢人家,他們很可能因為各種的理由而免於即時拘留並成功保釋,因為他們推斷不會潛逃、且能支付大額保釋金等等。最著名的例子相信就是法官包致金侄女摑警一案。雖然在法庭上看似有準則以及案例去支持判決,但實際上每當真正操作時,判決常常會受個人的身份所影響。

統治階級一次又一次把其爪牙的真面目暴露出來,警察、法律都只是為其服務。我們從來都沒有幻想過在這樣的司法程序裡面會得到公平的判決。抗爭者必需要認清所謂「法治精神」的真面目,更須要打破對資產階級法律的幻想。更沒有幻想過會在建制裡面能夠真正爭取得到勞動人民穩固而又長遠的利益!勞動人民聯合起來!為推翻資本主義而奮鬥!

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9unLZf0ow2g
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/18/alfie-meadows-trial-jurors-v…
[3] https://www.facebook.com/notes/po-chien-chen/國家機器與警察暴力:從一個被警棍打到腦出血的抗議學生「遭起訴」聊起/316638225069930

Posted in 文宣 statements | Leave a comment

Statement for June 4th Incident

To be absolutely honest, we don’t have a whole lot to say about June the 4th, 1989.
Nothing about the rivalries and intrigues between this bureaucrat and the other.
Nothing about the economic policies of this party boss or that party boss.
Nothing about the comparative merits of Hu Yaobang, Deng Xiaoping or Zhao Ziyang.
Nothing about the sweeping economic reforms that Deng Xiaoping instituted when his party line prevailed.
Nothing about the persisting inflation, corruption and debt imbalances that compelled workers, workers tired of being bullied by their foremen, exhausted from the endless toil and drudgery extorted from them by their managers, to take to the streets that year.
Nothing about their creativity and independence, as they set up quarters in Tiananmen Square and established the Beijing Workers’ Autonomous Federation (北京工人自治联合会), demanding the right to set up an independent organ for militant workers across China.
Nothing about the fact that they seized the right to speak for themselves, a right that had, throughout Chinese history, been the property of intellectuals and students, trained in the art of rhetoric and political demagoguery.
Nothing about their courage as they defended the same students who had excluded them from the 1989 protests, forcing them to the periphery of Tiananmen Square, which the students wanted to keep ‘pure’ from economic demands.
Nothing about the failed rapprochement between the students- whose demands for ‘democracy’ were, admittedly, abstract and vague, but, for precisely this reason, gave the Tiananmen protests a force and a power that exceeded any concrete demand- and the workers, who despite their bravery and fortitude failed to see what they had in common with their young comrades.
Nothing about all that.

Because you see, despite the fact that we are steeped up to our eyeballs in history, we don’t really want to use this space to correct the historical record of Tiananmen.
Sometimes, we can’t help but feel that all of this history, all of this retrospection, while important, blinds us from seeing what’s right in front of us. Which, in our opinion, is what we would like to call the TRUTH of Tiananmen.
Not the truth of what happened, what has been obscured and covered up by propaganda.
No, we are not interested in a truth that is factually accurate, though, as we said, this is also important.
The truth that we want to talk about is not buried in the past, awaiting those who search for it, those who want to find it at all costs.
The truth that we want to talk about does not lay beneath the layers of distortion and denial that has blocked our access to it.
The truth that we want to talk about is a truth that Tianamen revealed about our own present.
This truth is the shadow that Tiananmen has thrown upon our lives, and it is the darkness of this shadow that we fail to see in the midst of all the candlelight.

It is good that we mourn, it is good that we cry for men and women whom we shall never know, whom we shall never forget.
It is good that Tiananmen affects us like a scar that shall never heal, a trauma.
The power of the trauma lies in the fact that it can never be consigned to the past,
that it remains fully and stubbornly in the present and interrupts our ability to live in the now.
The trauma is the past insisting in and inhibiting the present.
We have to live Tiananmen in this way if we are to remember those who died,
instead of allowing death to be bought off cheaply by a Party apology.
We have to think about what the deaths in Tiananmen demand from us,
the debt they place us in,
the way we have to live and act after 1989.
Not to find a cheap cure for this trauma or to ignore it (which would make the traumatic symptoms worse),
but to live with it every moment of our lives, not simply on June 4th.

There are many of us who don’t really know what to do with China, a state that blends rapacious, cutthroat neoliberal economics with the iron fist of Stalinist authoritarianism.
Many people still believe that China, with the benefit of time, will move towards a more humanitarian, democratic culture, one governed by tolerance, human rights and the rule of law.
These people, despite having witnessed a century (the 20th) and despite living in a century (the 21st) that offers no proof whatsoever that supports it, still believe in the cult of ‘progress’.
All we want to say to these people is that if we situate China and the ‘democratic’ societies of the West on opposite extremes, characterizing one as ‘backward’ and the other as ‘progressive’, then we fail to see how they form two complementary sides of the same present, a present of barbarism.

Here lies the problem with all the historians- amateur or professional- who tell us that Tiananmen should be seen in ‘context’ and that we can’t talk about Tiananman ‘abstractly’, apart from its time and place.
For us, there is a danger in this.
The danger is that, in treating Tiananmen as an exception,
in examining the matter in isolation,
we fail to see the TRUTH that we are talking about, and this TRUTH is true for the societies that we find ourselves in today, democratic, ‘socialist’ or whatever.
If we continue to treat Tiananmen as a barbaric act committed by a ‘backwards’, Stalinist state, if we imagine that a ‘democracy’, with its checks and balances, makes Tiananmen impossible, we fail to see the barbarism of our time, we fail to see the darkness that surrounds us, that can descend upon us at any instant.

But maybe we should set things straight first, so we aren’t misunderstood.
Why don’t we want to talk about what actually happened in Tiananmen?
Because, according to most people, what actually happened was nothing significant in itself.
Certainly nothing that deserved to be crushed in such a brutal way.
These people say that the state OVERREACTED.
And, if we look at the facts, perhaps we can say that it did.
But were the ‘facts’ really what the state was concerned about?
Students with a bunch of confused demands, some of whom appointed themselves as leaders and bossed everyone around, the same way party apparatchiks boss their subordinates around.
Workers who fought with unprecedented courage and tenacity, but who really asked for nothing more than their own autonomous federation and better working conditions.
A federation that, dare we add, could very well have become another bureaucratic apparatus commanded by the ‘labor aristocracy’.
Students blocking workers from joining the spectacle in the center, from fusing the proletarian cause with the student demand for political reform.
Workers regarding the students- rightly- for their snobbery and suspicious political motives.
This cleavage between intellectual and worker is so prominent throughout Chinese history it is barely worth commenting upon. Sadly, it wasn’t really crossed in Tiananmen.

But that’s why talking about things on the level of facts is really pointless.
Because the fact of the matter is that the line COULD have been crossed, that it COULD have been erased in Tiananmen.
The same way as it was crossed by an entire generation of young workers and university students in May 1968, France, when students and workers passed in and out of occupied universities and factories, having evicted their professors, their deans, their bosses, their party and union chiefs.
The same way as it was crossed in Italy, 1977, when students and intellectuals developed a new form of revolutionary theory (‘worker’s inquiry’) and forged a new form of revolutionary action with workers, women, the unemployed.
The same way as it was crossed in the Paris Commune of 1871, when bakers, tailors, housewives, grocers, defected soldiers, bohemians and artists armed themselves to defend a Paris that they had seized from the state, and which they transformed from top to bottom in the course of three glorious months of joy and festivity.
The same as it has been crossed in Greece, in Tunisia, in Egypt.

When Marx and Engels spoke of the ‘specter of communism’, what was it that they meant, if not this POSSIBILITY, this POSSIBILITY that casts its ghostly presence upon the present, shining a different light upon what we take to be REAL and ACTUAL?
That things can be different, that we don’t have to live this way?
The specter of communism was hovering over Tiananmen in 1989.
The specter of communism hovers over every instant of our waking lives.
The specter of communism is the faint light that struggles to reach us in the darkness that we stumble through.

We realize that this is sounding very religious, but allow us to clarify ourselves.
What happened in 1989 was not a response to something that ACTUALLY happened, to thoughts that the students and workers ACTUALLY had, to views that they ACTUALLY held.
The slaughter in 1989 was the slaughter of a possibility, the possibility that students and workers could go beyond themselves and meet each other in a common space beyond both worlds, beyond both identities.
To meet in this space and to build an ‘us’ within this space is to refuse to stay in the place that power has assigned to you.
This space is not simply physical, it does not exist independently of the people who occupy it.
This space is always a political space, an experimental space, a space where desires for transformation and revolution can form, desires that the state and the market cannot satisfy.
It is this space, where people meet and open themselves up to a collective transformation, that the state must deny and destroy at all costs.

In China, a category that the Party has always applied to those that fall foul of its dictates is ‘reactionary’ or ‘counter-revolutionary’.
Many of us laugh at this name, saying that it’s nothing but Stalinist jargon.
But if you really think about it, the violence of naming, which always authorizes physical/state violence, is fully operative in our own society.
On June 4th of last year, some of us marched to North Point police station to demand the dropping of all legal charges that hung above our heads.
We were surrounded by the police and blocked en route to the station.
Several residents in the neighorhood that we were in (a DAB stronghold), came out of their houses and screamed at us, calling us ‘garbage youth’ and ‘scum’, imploring the police to beat us up and throw us in cells, cheering as pepper spray rained from the sky.
What do ‘garbage’ and ‘scum’ signify, if not subhumanity?
That is, rubbish should be treated like rubbish, not human beings.
The line that runs through each of us, separating ‘citizen’ and ‘terrorist’, ‘human’ and ‘subhuman’ is actually rather thin, and we never know when we have crossed it.
Today, each of us is tracked from the moment we wake to the moment we retire. Everything is traceable- phone calls, e-mails, tags on Facebook, credit cards, Octopuses. We live our entire lives beneath CCTV cameras, supposedly set up for our ‘security’.
Compounding matters is the fact that Article 23 continues to loom above our heads.
A terrorist law that will treat us all as potential terrorists, potential enemies of public order.

This, you see, is the darkness, the shadow that 1989 casts over 2012.
What the silent presence of this shadow says, if it could speak, is this- it is the state that decides when you are a citizen or a menace to society.
It is the state that decides whether you have the right to live or whether you have forfeited its protection.
Because you are monitored from day to night, you will be made to feel guilty in advance, every instant of your life.
It is your duty as a citizen to PROVE to the state that you are innocent, to be excessively obedient.

In 1989, the Chinese Communist Party drew the sword that every state keeps in its scabbard, bringing it upon the heads of its own young.
This sword hangs above each of our heads, to be used in cases of emergency.
This emergency is the specter of communism.
Or, if you don’t like the word communism (and who can blame you),
we can call it ‘the power of the united and ungovernable people’.
This power exposes the weakness of the state,
the paranoia of the state,
the hysteria of the state, which sounds the alarm and draws its knives in fear when an emergency arrives.

The depth of this darkness, which we live in as though it were our natural habitat, blinds us from a very simple fact.
The fact that the emergency is us.
It has always been us, in 1848, in 1871, in 1936, in 1956, in 1968, in 1977, in 1989, in 2012.
And this simple fact- which we find so difficult to admit to ourselves and which the state would like us to forget for good- is the truth that we would like to speak of today,
because all of those who have died because of it,
because of the state’s desperation to erase and silence it,
place an enormous responsibility on us to speak of it, on this day when so many of us fell, twenty three years ago, for living in the midst of a beautiful possibility.

So you see, when we ask the Party to reverse its judgment on 6/4,
when we ask them to repeal and overturn it,
we need to know what we’re talking about.
If THEY apologize for one Tiananmen,
this does nothing about the silent threat of another, and another.
Vindicating Tiananmen,
This is not something we can ASK for.
We cannot ask the darkness to retreat, for the darkness to be anything but what it is,
we have to see it for what it is and resist it, we have to pierce through it together so that light can reach us.
What we will overturn is the deadly grip that the law has upon our lives, breaking it with the innocence of being together.
We will invent a life stronger than the death that waits for us everywhere.
Then no-one shall have died for nothing.

Posted in 文宣 statements | Leave a comment

《要求平反,不如造反》佔領中環六四聲明

坦白講,對於八九六四,我們沒有很多話要說。
沒有,關於官僚之間的爾虞我詐、權力鬥爭;
沒有,關於胡耀邦、鄧小平、趙紫陽誰好誰壞;
沒有,關於當天因為持續通漲、貪腐、債務失衡、管理層的苛索,致使工人們從無止盡的勞役中走上街頭,(和今日沿海城市的工人一樣)以令人驕傲姿態奮進;
沒有,關於他們的自主創造:在廣場上成立北京工人自治聯合會,要求為全國的基進派工人設立獨立機關,監察和影響國家勞工及經濟政策;
沒有,關於他們保護那班學生的勇氣——那班嘗試把工人推到廣場和運動的邊緣,為了保持自己「純粹」而沒有經濟面向的訴求的學生;
沒有,關於(作為社會菁英、黨未來的棟樑及大部分出身權貴的)學生和(組成人鏈立於施暴者面前的)工人被捕後相去甚遠的待遇;
沒有,關於學生和工人之間沒法成形的連結:學生的「民主訴求」空洞而抽象,但亦因而令廣場運動具備超越任何實質訴求的力量;工人堅定而剛毅,但卻沒看到自己和年輕的同志們是如何共通……

對這些種種,我們都沒甚麼要說。

每年這個時候,我們都被淹沒於「歷史」之中,但我們對精準的史實不太感興趣;
雖然這段歷史、這些回顧也很重要,但我們卻不想再斟酌於天安門內切實發生過的一切。
對很多人來說,著眼點是國家出動暴力鎮壓,是不必要的過度反應。歷史學家常告訴我們不可以離開具體的時空、抽空地說六四。對我們來說,危機正正在這裡。
危機就是:我們把天安門當成是例外、孤立地去分析和理解;
我們仍把天安門的屠殺,單看成是「落後」的史大林國家所作的野蠻行為;
我們仍幻想「民主」可令權利自我制衡、令天安門的屠殺不再出現。

對我們來說,天安門的真相: 不是那些被政治宣傳蒙蔽了的、埋藏的事件;
不是被扭曲、否認,要費九牛二虎之力才能揭示的過去;
我們想說的真相,是當年的天安門廣場展示了我們的當下,
那籠罩著我們每天生活的、野蠻暴力的現實,和無時無刻都會降臨的——天安門的黑影,
那個在每年的燭光照耀下,所看不清的黑影。

如果這沉默的黑影能說話,它會說︰你是「市民」還是「人民公敵」由國家決定;
法庭上你站在哪一欄,由國家決定。
你是否有生存的權利、是否受其保護,由國家決定。
日以繼夜的監視,令你每秒鐘都感到自己是犯人,即使你甚麼都沒/未做。一覺醒來直至退休老死,每一刻都可被追蹤。電話、電郵、facebook、信用咭、八達通,樣樣都可被監控。我們每日都活在那些「保障我們安全」的攝錄機之下。而廿三條這恐怖主義式的法例,更陰深地壓在我們的頭上,將我們每個人都當成潛在的恐怖份子、公眾秩序的潛藏敵人。

你,作為公民的責任就是向國家證明你是清白的,而且會聽教聽話。

那條在「良好市民」和「恐怖份子」之間的線、「人」和「非人」之間的線,其實非常薄弱,甚至我們根本不會知道何時已逾過。

在1989年,中國共產黨從它的鞘內亮出每個國家都藏有的一把刀,置於它人民的頭上。這巨大而可怖的權力,是主權和憲法所附予給國家政權,去捍衛和保護它自己的權利,亦是國家不惜一切去遮掩,大家卻又心照不宣的一個威脅。
這把刀,懸在每個國家的人頭上,等待任何「緊急狀況」的出現。

這個黑影的深邃,令我們忘記了一個簡單的事實:
我們,其實就是那「緊急狀況」、那個從1848、1871、1936、1956、1968、1977、1989,到2012,令政權惴惴不安的「緊急狀況」。
當年中共政府出動的士兵坦克,衝著的並不是「現實」的學生和工人的想法和立場,或「實際」上他們拉著的旗幟和呼喊的口號。
那時槍頭對準的,是一個可能性:學生和工人能超越各自身份,逾越既有界限,令彼此之間的差異不再構成貴賤之別,不再成為分化他們的原因;拒絕留在權力指派的崗位,在一個共同的空間相遇的可能性。
這個相遇的空間,是政治的、實驗的;是可以讓改變和革命(一種政府和市場都無法滿足)的慾望,在此形成;是讓人們相遇並開放自己,期待著共同的改變;讓他們結集起來、改變「現實」。

可惜的是,知識份子和工人之間的溝壑,年深日久,在當年的天安門廣場裡,這界限還是沒有被跨越。正因如此,「事實」的層面上的討論,再沒甚意思。
因為「事實」是,那年的天安門中,那條界線本應可以被衝破,被消滅;
就如在68年五月的法國,當學生和工人趕走了那些教授、院長、政黨和工會會長,逕自在他們所佔領的大學和工廠進進出出;
就如在1977年的意大利,當知識份子和學生們發展出一套新的革命理論(「工人調查」),並以此為基礎,連結工人、女性和失業者開展新形式的革命行動。
就如在1871年的巴黎公社,當麵包師傅、裁縫、主婦、退役士兵、波希米亞人、藝術家們都自我武裝起來,捍衛那個從政府手上奪過來的巴黎,那個他們在三個月內(以快樂、慶典)完完全全改變了的巴黎。
就如在希臘、在突尼西亞、在埃及一樣。

馬克思和恩格斯口中「共產主義的幽靈」,指的難道不正是這個可能性嗎?
這個縈繞於當下的可能性;
這個一直質問生活是否必要如此、不斷向既定的「現實」尋釁的可能性。
如果你不喜歡「共產主義」這名字(又有誰不能明白…),
我們可以把它喚作「不受統治、團結起來的人民力量」,
這股比國家的刀更強勁的力量。
揭示了國家政權的脆弱、它的偏執和歇斯底里,
這股力量,不斷創造「特殊狀況」,逼令國家敲響警號、亮出刀刃。

所以,當我們要求平反六四,需要清楚自己說的是什麼。
因為即使他們為天安門事件道歉,也不會阻止往後一次、又一次沉默的威脅。
我們不可能要求黑影退去,因為它無處不在我們當中;
但我們要認清它的面目,對抗它、刺破它。

慶幸,我們仍能哀悼,我們為那些陌生的、死去的人痛哭;
慶幸,天安門成為我們身上一個永不磨滅的疤痕、創傷;
這創傷的力量在於,它並未過去,它不屈不撓地存在於此刻,同時亦圍困著我們的當下,甚至影響著我們每刻面對生活的能力。
請不要忽視這個傷口、或輕率地把它治療。
所謂紀念,絕非要求這個黨便宜地道歉;
所謂紀念,是和這傷口一起活下去,行動下去,不只六月四日,而是每日每刻
思索當年廣場上逝去的生命,令我們對自己應有怎樣的要求、摃上怎樣的債;
不單單著眼於當年當日發生的事,而是直面六四的黑影——這死亡的黑影,就如八九廣場上的人一樣。

我們要無畏地、緊緊地靠在一起;
我們要在死亡的黑影下,創造出更強悍的生命;
那,就不會再有人死於無名之中。

 

Posted in 文宣 statements | Leave a comment

自由學社—下周末的課堂

繪畫探討《“….”價值?!》
21/4 (六)
15:00-17:30@佔領中環

提到價值你首先會想到甚麼?自由學社價值?佔領中環價值?人的存在價值?現今的繪畫價值?還是…一份午餐的價值?或是…價值?

這個“畫班”並非限於興趣活動, 在分享知識同時也希望透過繪畫視覺藝術讓大家在不同講題中有深一層的自我思考。今次會以《“….”價值?!》
為題, 認識抽象定義並創作。
歡迎任何人參與, 在中環匯豐總行地下artjamming!
會提供基本畫具、顏料,歡迎自備物資。 

‎”…”是當提起”價值”,你會想起的事/物/人/名詞。

 

從法語文化看社會公義 (4)

22/4 (日)
17:00-19:00@佔領中環

聚會討論用中文,歡迎不懂法語者參加!

從阿拉伯之春 到 89年之春 到 方勵之 到 2012法國總統大選
printemps arabe à printemps 1989 à Fang Lizhi à présidentielle 2012

partie 1 第一部分: 政治吹水 bavarder la politique
partie 2 第二部分: jouer des mots 咬文嚼字

參考文獻:

http://cpa.hypotheses.org/2756

mots-clés 關鍵詞︰
la chair de poule 起雞皮
printemps 春天
analphabète 文盲
bigot 偏執
le Moyen-Orient 中東
l’Afrique du Nord 北非
jeune 年輕人
peuple 人
bombardements 轟炸
la vérité 真相

Posted in 活動公告 Events, 自由學社 Free School | Leave a comment

Free School自由學社— 學期中聚會

 

 

 

 

 

日期︰4月7日(星期六)
時間︰17:00 整理經驗,19:00 影片播放,20:30 討論
地點︰佔領中環
*屈時OC會準備少量食物,大家亦可帶一些來分享。

 

不經不覺自由學社已運作一個月了,期間不少看似奇形怪狀的課堂、交流在此產生。令人回想起一月時開幕禮中對(解放)教育的討論。

有了少少的實踐,相信各位教/學同道應有新的體會或疑難。當然也希望FreeSchool裏的新朋舊友可以互相認識。
故誠邀大家於四月七日出席自由學社學期中聚會,屈時將會播放一齣有關教育、自主、共同的意大利影片《當服從不再是美德》(Don Lorenzo Milani e la sua scuola)。然後一起整理、類比一下自由學社,及我們作為參與者的體驗,從交流、檢討中再出發。

電影簡介︰
http://smff.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/milani/
p.s. 其實佔領中環想買部投影機,FreeSchool堂上會用到,遲下又搞電影放映會。但大家又唔係好有錢,projector二手的亦要二至三千(如果大家知道有更平/免費執的話請提供資訊!)。所以希望大家有能力的話多多少少幫助一下,來到中環放入籌款箱即可。感謝。

Posted in 活動公告 Events, 自由學社 Free School | Leave a comment