[Author's note: the following is the text of a paper I presented to a Queensland Greens training workshop in April 2003. I have been prompted to post it here by Robert Merkel's most recent post.]
This paper is a preliminary attempt to describe the evolution of the political paradigm of Radical Democracy in response to the shortcomings of older paradigms of progressive politics, identify the main similarities and differences between the two main varieties of Radical Democracy, and discuss the potential application of Radical Democracy as a “master frame” for Green politics.
Social Democracy and Communism: the Once-Dominant Paradigms of Progressive Politics
For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, the socialist and labour movements were the dominant form of progressive politics in Western capitalist democracies. Whilst socialist and labour politics took diverse forms, after World War I the two dominant currents were official Social Democracy, and Marxist-Leninist Communism. In some continental European democracies after World War II, notably Italy and France, the Communist Parties evolved into a hybrid of Communism and Social Democracy.
Despite their differences, these two dominant forms of socialist and labour politics shared some important characteristics, notably:
1. Regarding “class”, defined in terms of relations of economic power and inequality, as the fundamental social cleavage in society to which all political and ideological divisions could be related, with the working class being seen as the principal support base of socialist and labour politics, and the promotion of “working class interests” as central to the socialist and labour project.
2. Seeing the central task in social change as the transformation of the economic system from capitalism to socialism, or at least reforming capitalism in a socialist direction, with socialism defined in terms of public ownership of the principal means of production, planning rather than the market as the principle method of economic decision-making, and a more or less egalitarian distribution of wealth and income.
3. According a crucial role to a socialist political party, either a mass electoral party of the Social Democratic type, or a revolutionary vanguard party of the Leninist type, in leading and (by achieving state power) directing the process of social change.
4. Likewise, regarding the conquest of governmental power (either by winning elections or by revolutionary seizure of state power), and subsequent policy action by government, as central to the achievement of socialist and labour goals.
These are generalisations, and both Social Democrats and Communists would argue that they (a) over-simplify the key elements of their politics and (b) don’t do justice to important exceptions and qualifications in their 20th century practice. Whilst acknowledging the validity of these criticisms, I would still argue that these generalisations stand up if considered as statements of overall tendencies.
Important corollaries of these general characteristics were that:
i) Whilst Communists and Social Democrats often supported non-class and non-economic struggles, such as those around gender equality, opposition to racism, campaigns for peace and disarmament, etc., these commitments were nonetheless set within a socialist-labour master frame in which class and economic objectives were central.
ii) Whilst being critical of capitalist relations of production and their consequences, Communists and Social Democrats were uncritical of, and even enthusiastic about, industrial forces of production, which they believed socialism could develop more efficiently and rapidly than capitalism.
iii) This, in turn, was an aspect of Communists’ and Social Democrats’ uncritical enthusiasm for science, technology and Enlightenment rationality in general.
iv) Further, whilst condemning the inequalities and poverty of capitalism, Communists and Social Democrats alike saw perpetual expansion of available material wealth and consumption opportunities, not just more equitable distribution of existing wealth, as unproblematically desirable goals. In the case of Social Democrats, expansion of wealth and consumption opportunities came to squeeze out egalitarian redistribution as a social goal.
v) Social Democrats and Communists both exhibited tendencies to “partocracy”, i.e. regarding “power to the party” as a goal in itself, seeking to maximise party influence within trade unions and other mass movements, regarding political activity outside the tutelage of “the party”, or in other parties, as marginal, frivolous, disloyal or a threat, and according an iconic status to the party, its institutions and leaders, regardless of how well or badly their actual practice conformed to the party’s founding principles.
vi) Social Democrats and Communists both regarded processes of sociocultural change not controlled or initiated by the state as either unimportant or subversive, whilst being largely uncritical of the reality of the Social-Democratic or Communist state and of the potential for state bureaucracies to subvert socialist and labour goals.
vii) Communists (including Trotskyists) distilled both these tendencies in a conception of the process of social change centering on the “foundational moment” of a workers’ revolution precipitated by a general crisis of capitalism, which would mark a complete rupture with the preceding social system and usher in a period of rational reorganisation of society under the leadership of the revolutionary party.
Again, whilst there were exceptions and qualifications, the above stands as a statement of general trends.
By the mid-20th century these class-centric, economistic, partocratic and statist expressions of socialist and labour politics were dominant, and had also largely ceased to embody a serious emancipatory potential. The Communist-ruled states were completely oppressive. In the West, following a short period of industrial and political struggle after WWII, the Social Democratic parties and trade unions accepted the post-war compromise based on the continued existence of industrial capitalism, Keynesian macro-economic management to smooth out the business cycle and maintain (nearly) full employment, the welfare state, a commitment to maximising economic growth as the means to simultaneously meet the demands of capital for profit, labour for improved wages and conditions, and government for revenues to fund social expenditure, and (amongst Social Democrats) a downplaying of egalitarian redistribution in favour of “a rising tide floats all ships”, and an acceptance that the fruits of technological change should be taken in form of rising consumption opportunities rather than a shorter working week or other emancipatory possibilities. This settlement has been brilliantly analysed by Allan Schnaiberg (1980) as the “treadmill of production” which is the main driver of environmental destruction in capitalist democracies. In many cases the co-option of trade unions into “growth coalitions” with business and governments was formalised through corporatist mechanisms of interest intermediation, such as the ACTU-ALP Accord relationship in Australia.
A Cautionary Note: Babies and Bathwater.
Before discussing the challenges which emerged in the later C20 to this dominant paradigm of progressive politics, I would like to clarify the criticisms of this paradigm implicit in the preceding discussion.
I do not criticise the Communists and Social Democrats for regarding class as an important social cleavage and source of injustice to be remedied, for seeking to articulate and advance working class interests, for challenging capitalist relations of production and advocating an alternative economic system, for seeing a positive potential in science and technology and Enlightenment modernity, for organising in the form of political parties, or for seeking to utilise government as an instrument for progressive social change. I believe that all these commitments, in some form and within a Green master frame, should be carried forward by Greens, as indeed they often are. Social Democrats presided over important social reforms which Greens would regard as progressive and worth defending, and Communists often played an important part in campaigns for objectives which Greens would share (notably peace and disarmament, international solidarity, women’s rights and opposition to racism). However, the Communist and Social Democratic paradigms framed and articulated these discourses and commitments in an incomplete and unbalanced way within a master-frame which limited their constructive and emancipatory potential, underestimated their negative potential, and lethally linked them with other discourses which were either destructive or oppressive or both.
My basic point is that, after their positive achievements have been taken into account, these paradigms are now inadequate for achieving progressive social change and an ecologically sustainable society in the new millennium, and Greens must look elsewhere.
The Challenge of the “New Politics”
The dominance of the class-centric, economistic, partocratic and statist paradigms of progressive politics came under sustained and multiple challenges from various directions from the 1960s onwards.
a) The persistence of critical alternative traditions within socialist and labour politics, including political and ideological currents such as anarchism, libertarian socialism and “critical theory” Marxism, and the influence of dissident democratic socialist intellectuals such as George Orwell.
b) The growing recognition, from the 1950s onwards, of the oppressive reality of “actually existing socialism” under Communist regimes.
c) The reaching of the limits of Social Democracy as a form of emancipatory politics rather than a kinder, gentler way of managing capitalism, and recognition of the bureaucratic statist shortcomings of actual social-democratic and welfare-statist institutions.
d) A recognition by the more self-critical Communists and Social Democrats of these failures, and of their roots in a failure to take democracy, pluralism and individual rights seriously enough.
e) The emergence of new social movements (or new versions of established social movements) which:
• put forward democratic, cultural and spiritual critiques of capitalism and state socialism, and post-material goals for social change; and/or
• resisted forms of domination, exploitation and inequality based on gender, race, sexuality, nationality, disability and undemocratic state power, provided deeper analyses of these injustices which showed their relative independence from class relations, and therefore organised oppressed and marginalised constituencies autonomously from, and in criticism of, the established institutions of progressive politics.
f) As a kind of flip side to this, a recognition that most actual “class struggle” in advanced capitalist societies the C20 was devoid of any emancipatory or system-challenging potential, being concerned with marginal redistribution of the fruits of industrial capitalism and being fought out in a completely institutionalised framework (as in the six-monthly wage cases in Australia). Conversely, those cases of “class struggle” which did have an anti-systemic trajectory often entailed unions taking up non-class and non-economic concerns of the new movements (as in the “Green Bans” in Australia).
g) Growing awareness of the environmental crisis and of its roots in industrial society (whether capitalist or state socialist), and the emergence of a political ecology movement which stressed ecological sustainability and non-anthropocentric ecological values as central social goals and key benchmarks for critiquing established social, economic and political structures.
h) As a consequence, growing scepticism about the desirability and even the long-term possibility of continued economic and consumption growth as a dominant societal objective.
i) A problematisation of Western science and technology and Enlightenment rationality, including a recognition of the negative underside of these discourses and the validity of alternative ways of understanding the world as expressed both by subordinate groups within Western society and by “Third World” and indigenous peoples.
j) The development, in and by the new social movements, of novel and unconventional forms of organisation and of political campaigning with an emphasis on participatory democracy, decentralisation, cultural politics in the symbolic-iconic sphere, celebration of internal diversity and inclusiveness rather than the cult of “loyalty” and uncritical solidarity found in traditional socialist and labour politics, cooperative rather than adversarial and crude majoritarian decision-making, “the personal is political” and the need to promote ethical and egalitarian inter-personal relations within movement groups, vigilance against sexism, racism and homophobia within movements, validation of diverse forms of knowing and communicating, etc.
k) The inability of the Social Democratic and Communist paradigms to effectively resist the global neo-liberal and neo-conservative (“New Right”) offensive of the 1980s.
l) The collapse of “actually existing socialism” in the USSR and Eastern Europe, and the transitions to “market Stalinism” in remaining Communist states like China and Vietnam.
Many of these developments came together to produce a “new politics” in which moral values, rather than material interests, were central. Green Parties emerged as one of the most important organised forms of the “new politics”, distinguished by the centrality of the ecological imperative to the Green critique of the capitalist and state socialist forms of industrial society, and to Green prescriptions for societal alternatives. At the same time, Green politics can also be distinguished from other forms of ecological and environmental movement politics in that it seeks to synthesise the ecological imperative with a social and moral vision of a good society based on the principles of grassroots democracy, social justice and equality, and non-violence. What I want to do from here on is to consider whether the “four pillars” of Green politics can be adequately captured within another important manifestation of the “new politics” – the paradigm of “radical democracy”.
What The (Moderated) Is Radical Democracy?
Answering this question is complicated by the fact that there are two main kinds: the post-modernist version propounded by post-Marxists such as Laclau and Mouffe (sometimes called “radical plural democracy”), and the universalistic version derived from the critical theory of Habermas, an example of which is John Dryzek’s model of an “ecologically rational” discursive democracy. I will try to avoid the issues of high theory in dispute between the post-modernists and the universalists, and draw out what both camps would agree on.
Radical Democracy starts from the assumption that the basic principle of liberal democracy – that of the equality and freedom of all citizens – should be the basic principle of progressive politics. Radical Democracy shares with Marxism the view that this principle is seriously compromised in practice in existing liberal-democratic societies, but differs from classic revolutionary Marxism in arguing that the way forward is not to seek a revolutionary rupture with liberal democracy, but to work for the complete realisation of this principle in all spheres of social life – the economy, the workplace, gender relations, family structures, etc., as well as deepening its application in the political system. (As an aside, it should be noted that by the 1980s many Communists and Social Democrats had also come around to a similar point of view.)
Radical Democrats would agree on the following applications of the radical-democratic paradigm (amongst others):
• Existing parliamentary-representative democratic institutions, whilst deserving to be defended against authoritarian trends, do not fully satisfy the classical benchmarks of democracy in that citizens’ opportunities for participation are limited, the structures of debate and decision-making are unduly hierarchical and prevent the adequate consideration of all legitimate options and viewpoints, and not all citizens have equal access to the democratic process due to inequalities of wealth, income, education, information and the effects of ascriptive inequalities of race, gender, etc.
• The capitalist economic system, and capitalist workplace relations, do not allow for democratic discussion of and control over economic decision-making, create unequal relations of domination and subordination at work, create undemocratic concentrations of resources and information in the hands of small numbers of people, and create inequalities of wealth and income which spill over into inequalities between citizens in the political sphere. Hence the need for a sustained democratic critique of capitalism and the advocacy and creation of more democratic economic alternatives (though not through a revolutionary process, or through state action alone).
• Ascriptive inequalities, such as gender inequality, race inequality, inequalities in family life, discrimination on the basis of sexuality, religion, etc., are all incompatible with the basic democratic principles of equality and liberty, and should thereby be resisted in favour of egalitarian relations.
Where different camps of Radical Democrats differ is, briefly, as follows”
• Universalistic RDs inspired by Habermas argue that a Radical Democracy should aim ultimately to enable society to achieve an uncoerced consensus on the public good, reflecting universal moral values and arrived at through processes of discursive democracy. This would mean social and political decisions would be made through participatory democratic processes in which all views and interests could be heard, & all options considered, and the eventual resolution be a consensus determined by the power of the better argument (rather than who has the most money or the most guns).
• Post-modernist RDs influenced by Laclau and Mouffe, whilst not disagreeing with the desirability of discursive participatory democracy, doubt the possibility of achieving a universal rational consensus on the “public good” and worry that the attempt may exclude or suppress particular cultures and identities. Thus they argue that a Radical Democracy should entail the continued existence of a plurality of different interests and identities which engage in dialogue as “agonistic” (i.e. non-antagonistic) adversaries, whose relationships and identities may change over time, ideally becoming more equal and harmonious, yet also agreeing to differ democratically.
This doesn’t do justice to the complexities of what is now known as the Habermas-Mouffe debate, which involves considerations of high theory which need not detain us here. However, the kernel of the debate may be expressed succinctly in an apocryphal joke, whereby Habermas is said to have emailed Mouffe with the message “Chantal, will you marry me?” and received a reply saying “No, Jurgen, but we can be good friends in spite of our differences.”
Where should Greens stand in this debate? I don’t think we can, or need to, choose one side or the other. Rather we should recognise that the existence of an “agonistic pluralism” within Radical Democratic thought is very fruitful, as both the universalistic and post-modernist versions contain important insights in their own right, and each contains valuable correctives to the potential weaknesses of the other.
Green Applications of Radical Democracy
How useful is Radical Democracy as a paradigm for Greens? It fits two of our four pillars – grassroots democracy and social justice & equality – like a glove, if by social justice and equality we understand the aim of extending egalitarian and democratic relations to all areas of social life, and redressing inequalities of wealth, resources and information which impede participatory democracy. The Green commitment to non-violence is also encapsulated, both in the Habermasian aspiration to resolve all differences through democratic dialogue in uncoerced “ideal speech situations”, and in Laclau & Mouffe’s call for discursive engagement and coexistence between a plurality of agonistic adversaries who are nonetheless not enemies.
Radical Democracy also entails eschewing the concept of achieving fundamental social change through a revolution or insurrection which marks a complete break with pre-existing society. Both in the universalistic and post-modernist versions, it calls for change to occur through a process of democratically agreed reform in which citizens are active participants rather than passive recipients of direction and benefits from a benign state. In the post-modernist version, where it is accepted that different identities and interests will continue to co-exist and/or be discursively created, there is also no end-point of an ultimate aim towards which the process of social change must be directed by a “revolutionary” leadership. Social change is always an open-ended process.
How does Radical Democracy deal with the ecological imperative? This is an interesting and complex question, which I don’t presume to have a complete answer to yet. An apparent difficulty is the question of whether a Radical Democracy based on the principle of equality and liberty of all humans currently alive can adequately capture the interests and values of non-human entities or future generations, although there is also an interesting debate in the ecopolitical literature about forms of “green democracy” which can allow for the expression of these values and interests. Certainly a strong case can be made that radical democratic processes are more likely to allow their expression than the available alternatives of two-party parliamentary democracy, the capitalist market, or rule of the administrative state. The Habermasian Radical Democrat, John Dryzek, makes a powerful case for discursive democracy as the basis of an ecologically rational society (Dryzek, 1987). On the post-modern side of the ledger, Laurie Adkin has applied the theories of Laclau & Mouffe to the practical problem of how to create alliances between environmentalists and unionists in Canada, arguing that the processes of agonistic dialogue between the two constituencies can enable them to transcend their pre-existing identities as “greenies” and “workers” to share an identity as citizens concerned with sustainability, to whit:
It is when the “environmentalist” confronts the crisis of livelihood of the “worker”, and when the “worker” confronts the destructive impacts of her livelihood that alternatives to the hegemonic model begin to be not only thinkable, but necessary. In this case, the basic elements of discourse may shift from “the environment” and “jobs” as distinct objects to be defended, to the conditions for a possible and desirable life on this planet. As a consequence, the definition of conflict changes from “environmentalists versus workers” to “those who defend the conditions for a possible and desirable life versus those who defend practices and relations that make impossible such a life”. (Adkin, 1992:136)
The same argument could extend to the creation of other societal alliances for sustainability.
However, there is one corollary of Radical Democracy which may displease some Greens almost as much as it displeases the orthodox Marxists. This is that a Radical Democratic strategy would not countenance the idea that a sustainable radical-democratic society can come about through a “general ecological crisis of industrialism” (or an “oil crunch” or the like) in which our existing society collapses, segueing into a “foundational moment” in which we enlightened Greens put our stamp on whatever emerges in its place.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would argue that Radical Democracy offers promise as a “master frame” within which we can locate the Green commitments to social justice and equality, grassroots democracy, and non-violence. It provides a more satisfactory and complete framework for these commitments than a liberal-democratic framework which unproblematically accepts the institutions of representative democracy and capitalist industrialism, whilst also avoiding and overcoming the weaknesses of the traditional social-democratic and communist paradigms. The question of the relationship between Radical Democracy and the ecological imperative is more problematic, although once again Radical Democracy seems better able to engage with ecological perspectives than the liberal and Marxist paradigms, both of which predate a recognition of the ecological imperative and include assumptions incompatible with recognition of ecological constraints. Finally, Radical Democracy in the form of agonistic pluralism provides a sound framework within which to think about coalition and alliance politics between Greens and other social actors such as the labour movement.
As this arose from a set of notes prepared for the student discussion on 9 March, and is not a formal paper, some important issues have been passed over or dealt with ropily due to pressures of time. However I hope it can stimulate some useful debate about the direction and political identity of the Greens, and in turn help us to determine more clearly the ground we stand on, and from which we can define our relations with other political forces (including whether we regard them as agonistic adversaries rather than enemies!).
Paul Norton
8 April 2003.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
Adkin, L. (1992), ‘Counter-Hegemony and Environmental Politics in Canada’, pp.135-156 in Carroll, W. (ed., 1992), Organizing Dissent: Contemporary Social Movements In Theory and Practice, Garamond Press: Canada.
Dryzek, J. (1987), Rational ecology: environment and political economy, Blackwell: Oxford/Cambridge.
Hekman, S. (2001), “Radical Plural Democracy: A New Theory For the Left?” in Negations, Winter 1996, at http://pages.globetrotter.net/charro/HERMES4/hekman.htm, March 2003.
Kapoor, Ilan, (2002), “Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? The relevance of the Habermas-Mouffe debate for third world politics” in Alternatives, Vol. 27, No. 4.
Kellner, D. (1999), “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention”, at http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/habermas.htm, March 2003.
Laclau, E., and C. Mouffe (1998), “Hearts, Minds and Radical Democracy”, interview of Laclau and Mouffe by Dave Castle for Red Pepper online magazine, at http://www.redpepper.org.uk/natarch/XRADDEM.HTML.
London, S. (1993), “Citizenship, Democracy and the Changing World Order”, at http://www.scottlondon.com/articles/kf3.html, March 2003.
An interesting contribuition Paul, and not a million miles from the journey I made.
My own ideal — inclusive governance — probably is closer to Habermas than Mouffe. While my model is non-party and pluralistic I have no special attachment to preserving cultural identities.
This is the most intellectually satisfying piece of commentary I have read in a quite a long time.
Many thanks, Paul.
What’s a paradigm?
I believe it is a traditional coin token given to a paratrooper for luck on his first training jump.
Seriously?
Goodness Paul. Somehow I misread your post as being “Greek politics as radical democracy” and thought it must be a critique of the current economic crisis the Greeks are facing.
When I realised my error I thought that if we just replaced Greeks for Greens it would probably read just as well.
True. “Leverage my profit with a new paradigm,” or “Profit my paradigm with a new leverage,” or “Paradigm a new leverage with my profit” make equal sense.
Interesting, although as someone coming from a non-sectarian and ecologist Marxist background nothing particularly exciting, or even new. It still leaves the Greens trying to recreate social democracy with a green face in a world where social democracy (let alone socialism) is regarded so far left that it comes into direct conflict with capital and all the vested interests of the state.
The radical democracy of which you speak has to go somewhere, but there is no indication you know where that is. It certainly can’t simply fill the space that traditional social democracy has vacated.
Also, whenever somebody starts quoting Habermas approvingly I begin to get uncomfortably fidgety, start having visions of dead Yugoslav civilians, and experience an overwhelming urge to scream obscenities while strangling the nearest ivory-tower-inhabiting academic I can find…
I saw the “Grilling” of the Goldman Sachs crew on TV last night. Realised that all this green stuff is a total waste of time until those of that ilk become compost. Habermas indeed, what a wanker; I saw the monsters last night and they are real and they are in control.
Huggy
Thanks Paul.
I cannot see what special claims the Greens have in relation to democracy. The legitimate aim of “green” politics surely is sustainable production, reproduction and distribution. Redistributive programs are a necessary corollary of both ecological outcomes and the furtherance of radical democracy. Where there is a convergance between those two projects then “green” politics has a legitimate contribution to make in developing and guiding ecologically sensible policies and outcomes.
However, “green” frameworks of understanding all too often represent attempts to smuggle in “deep ecology” virtues as part of the project. The greens will have to weed out those anti-humanist tendencies before I’d be prepared to accept leadership from political ecology on matters related to democracy. Therefore, my own preference is to look to the history and philosophy of democracy for ways to advance radical democracy. To this extent it appears to me that John Keane’s notion of monitory democracy, for example, is better placed to inform the forces of democracy than any “green theory”.
I’m also more inclined to locate current political developments within a framework of liberalism (liberal anarchists aligned against communitarian liberals) as the most meaningful critical dialogue.
Finally it appears that attempts to theorise “green politics” are still groping after a grand narrative to inform the trajectory of social democracy, the greens and/or the remnants of socialism. However, the absence of an effective or coherent grand narrative actually allows for more effective piecemeal skirmishes around democratic projects on the broken terrain of the 21C.
Huggy, I’ve long held the view that if you want to have democracy, which we must, a sine qua non is to get big money out of government, to domesticate and civilise big corporations and to put some kind of a moat between government and Big Pharma, Big Coal and the rest.
Easy to say, close to impossible to do.
It is interesting that James Hansen in his book sees this as priority number one and says he was prepared to vote for John McCain when he was promising to do something about it, even though Obama’s policy suite was more attractive than McCain’s. Then it became clear that McCain wouldn’t, so Hansen switched his support to Obama, who, he says, he hasn’t given up on although his performance so far where it really matters in relation to the future of the planet has come up short.
Under WTO rules multinationals have more rights than citizens in any jurisdiction they care to operate in. That’s leaving aside the power differentials and the notion that justice systems generally bend in favour of the powerful.
Brian,
Exactly my perspective too.
Nothing short of a massive social upheaval will change things.
Huggy.
A very thought provoking piece, two issues that went through my mind were:
(a) How to deal with the rulers/owners of society currently who will not just sit back allow you to take their power/money away? and;
(b) How to prevent repeats of the Swiss minaret ban or California’s repeal of equal marriage – i.e. unquestionably democratic actions that reflect the existing prejudice of a society?
Really interesting read Paul. Well thought out and well written.
I tend to think a lot of the ideas you cross over are deeply rooted in Marxist thought. I mean Habermas himself was essentially a Marxist was he not? I like that you are grappling with the failure of party based systems and the need to branch out beyond the thinking of supporting a party at all costs regardless of the outcome it has on society. This is something Marxists and socialists need to discuss and work out a solution for.
I can also see Anthony Nolan’s point about the Greens not having any particularly special place to play in radical democracy too. For me your ideas about agonistic relations are more on the money, there is a place for the Labor party and organized labour also a place for the Greens and perhaps other progressive parties too because they all have necessary but conflicting aims and we require discussion and compromise to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.
anthony nolan@10: The greens will have to weed out those anti-humanist tendencies before I’d be prepared to accept leadership from political ecology on matters related to democracy.
So who would you accept leadership on democracy from? Most of the consensus-based groups I know are either green or anarchist (or both). Would you be willing to learn from them?
I think part of the point of the approach Paul is talking about is that you don’t have to accept every detail of the parties you’re working with, you just work with them on the issues that you care about. Or to put it another way, consensus means you can’t be overruled either.
Also, how much of your concern with deep ecology being anti-human comes from the idea that there can only be one right answer and we must impose it on everyone? You don’t want them doing that to you, sure, but they don’t want you doing it to them either. That’s cliche enlightenment democracy thinking, and I suspect you’d find most greeies (of any stripe) opposed to that style of thinking.
I’m in a community group that’s going through this process right now and it’s very painful. Currently we vote to see whether we’ve reached consensus because many members can’t imagine making decisions without voting. But it gets in the way of forming consensus because people still think they can hold whatever ideas they have, refuse to listen to others, not engage with the meeting, then overrule the dissenters with a majority vote. I lack the skills to show them otherwise (I’m trying to lead by example, explain what I’m doing… and it’s not working).
At a national level I’d settle for a consensus of politicians, forgetting any ideas about national consensus, but I think that’s as realistic as asking for government by tooth fairy. And harder to turn around than the community group.
Am I being too post-modern if I say that it’s not who the idea comes from, it’s how good the idea is, that counts?
Your three bullet point conclusions about current democracy are simply wrong. Therefore your conclusions are wrong (in fact two are wrong a priori). The bullet points are (condensed)
Here’s why.
The first bullet point is simply a definitional one. If you define democracy such that the current system falls outside it, then of course it isn’t democratic. You defined it that way.
The other two points think liberty and equality are somehow related, but they are not. They have nothing to do with each other. Finally, capitalism is the only system that allows control over economic decision making by definition (that’s your second a priori error). That’s the whole point of free markets. I’m not surprised you have such a deep misunderstanding of capitalism… most on the left do. That’s why they’re still on the left.
Moz:
“So who would you accept leadership on democracy from?”
Well, Aristotle and Plato are an absolutely necessary foundation. Then Karl Popper, Max Weber, John Keane, Machiavelli, Michael Sandel, Martin Krygier, Robert Manne, Sheldon Wolin and Seyla Benhabib as well as Judith Butler, the above mentioned Chantelle Mouffe and numerous others. nearly forgot Axel Honneth whose work on the political economy of the distribution of recognition, respect and reciprocity is enlivening democratic thinking.
My point was that political ecology has little to offer democratic theory or practice. Most (small g) green political theory attempts to impose a particular construction of “nature” as an ordering principle for social life when all we need is a sustainable and biodiverse environment. We definitely do not need Gaian visions of “nature” at the centre of social organisation when we are pursuing radical equalitarian democracy.
As well, notwithstanding your exhausting experiences with participatory democracy, the track record of some of the major Australian environmental organisations, including the WWF, Greenpeace and TWS is hardly exemplary on internal democracy. The point being that greens generally need to come up to speed about democratic processes before they start suggesting that others could learn from them.
Consensus based democracy doesn’t work. End of. Your project will never, ever get traction because you might as well be proposing that elections must be held while hovering 5 metres above the ground, dancing on thimbles.
You’ve clearly never been to a Greens’ meeting. It works fine.
A greens meeting is a single organisation with goals, a shared mission between the participants, shared values, and where people often if not always know each other by name. That’s not a model for how to make decision making at a governmental level. As a quick example, imagine trying to do the same decision making process with Greens and One Nation members. No shared vision, no shared values, etc. Or to take a slightly manufactured (but still pertinent) example, a group that proposes universal gun ownership versus a group opposed to all guns. Pro-choice versus pro-life. Pro-death penalty versus anti-death penalty. There are plenty of unresolvable political polarities in our society, but most of them reside outside the boundaries of a single organisation. Hence the illusion created by attending Greens meetings that consensus politics works.
I think this illusion should have a new name! Let’s call it the Democratic Party Room Illusion. We can also call it Munro’s Paradox if you like.
Munroe #16:
“Finally, capitalism is the only system that allows control over economic decision making by definition”
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
None at all.
I don’t know how to help – your understanding is apparently nonexistent and I just don’t know where to start. Do you mean state control? Individual control? Democratic control?
Munroe #18:
“Consensus based democracy doesn’t work.”
Democracy, however defined, resides entirely in consensus.
Perhaps you think ‘consensus’ means ‘everybody agreeing completely with each other all the time about everything’. Perhaps such are your only experiences of sharing political views with others, so when you wander off the reservation you see groupthink everywhere. Again, I don’t know, as you’ve given very little evidence of having thought about your words at all.
Anyone who could so totally misunderstand such basic things should slink away and have a good long stroll in the hall of mirrors.
And would it kill you to spell your name consistently?
Capitalism improves overall human happiness; there is overwhelming evidence for this fact. If you don’t understand that basic fact, then yes, it would be tedious to even begin.
if that’s true, then all we’re arguing about – and all you’re defending – is definitions.
What you said about capitalism, and I quoted earlier:
“Finally, capitalism is the only system that allows control over economic decision making by definition”
Seriously, WTF dude? You can’t pretend that demonstrates an understanding of capitalism, economics or anything at all.
Finally, capitalism is the only system that allows control over economic decision making by definition
Who is this “definition”, why does his or her name not get an initial cap, and how has he or she screwed the capitalist pooch so badly? Why is it not time to replace definition with someone who knows what they are doing?
This is what I want to know FDB.
Whatever. I capitulate. “Consensus democracy” is best, capitalism causes structural inequalities that undermine democracy, Australia/US/other fascist nations are not truly democratic, and the Greens – a lone voice of sanity in the wildernss – would improve everyone’s wellbeing if they ever got their policies implemented.
Whatever. I capitulate.
As well you should, since you were talking tosh.
This from someone who famously put forward,and defended over 499 posts, the propostion that the Americans had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the Japanese had sued for peace.
Munroe, if anyone knows tosh it is Fran.
It is her metier.
Of course, I was right, GregM and you were simply iterating the post-war spin.
Munroe if you were in any doubt about your opinions don’t be.
This is the braindead that you are up against. That is all.
I should in fairness to Fran explain that in defending her position on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki she came out big time on proposing gross war crimes such as starving civilians to death and hostage taking.
And this is a text book case of ad hominem as a line of attack.
Here the attempt is to discredit one argument by derogating something unrelated the person said in another argument. This is also an attempt to win by thread-hijack. Notable here that GregM took exactly one post to move the goalposts from the proferred surrender to what alternatives the US had to atom-bopmbing two cities. As seen in the tetramagetic thread, GregM loves moving the goalposts.
We’re not doing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki argument again here GregM. Clearly, you are still hurting, and got a biff around the ears from Katz as well, IIRC, but I made my case there and that’s the end of it.
And your only analysis of munroe’s comments, howwever well or ill conceived they are is:
I think that the ad homimem attack is your specialty.
In passing please point out any comment Katz made on the famous Hiroshima thread that contributed anything that contradicted the overwhelminglyaccepted view on that thread that your claims were utterly and demonstrably false.
It is sad that you would put forward Katz as vindication on anything on this site given his track record of being wrong on just about anything when he is put under scrutiny – Britain’s policy in Ireland in the 19th century and South Korean trade policy after WW2 being just two egregious examples which come to mind.
GregM keeps digging …
Plainly, you don’t understand what ad hominem means.
Amusing … so much pomposity and so little erudition to found it.
Thanks for the heads up, Greg. Yeah, I thought it might be a bit of fun to engage in a debate of these issues; but the local denizens of this blog aren’t interested, which of course is their right. You can ask – you can’t expect.
It’s a pity that nobody was interested in defending their beliefs other than to assert that I was stupid and moan about how much effort it would be to explain why I was wrong. Hence my rather acidic “capitulation”.
munroe, you’ve made at least as many unsupported assertions as anyone else – the assertions about capitalism being the most recent – so I don’t really think you’re in a position to criticise others for that.
GregM, your feud with Fran is one thing, but to be an enabler of the kind of commentary munroe offering on this subject is entirely another, and waaay too much to subject the readers of this blog to. give it up, or take your feud to a weekend thread.
Also, Anthony Nolan, that you perceive there to be a an anti-humanist aspect to deep-ecology suggests either a misinterpretation of the term ‘ecology’, or the term ‘human’. Can you identify some examples of the anti-humanist ideology you describe within the green movement?
My commentary is “waaay too much to subject the readers of this blog to”? Holy mother of God. I’m outta here.
Surely that question is intended ironically.
“Holy mother of God. I’m outta here.”
we can only hope.
St F …
As with the majority of reactionaries and conservatives, GregM’s “feud” is first with himself and thereafter with reality.
As moderator of this thread, I don’t wish to name any commenter/s in particular, but I’ve just done an MS Word search on the original post and I haven’t been able to find any occurrence of the words ‘Hiroshima”, “Nagasaki” or “atom bomb”.
Saint Furious, I think the perceived anti-humanism of some deep greens comes from the assertion that, if we don’t do something about the environment (and specifically over-population), the environment is going to do it for us, and it won’t be pleasant. Some people confuse stating a likely outcome with approving it.
Good riddance to Munroe. I don’t know if the bloke is a religious adherent to the popular right-wing mythologies upon which backward right-wing ideologies are build upon (the right don’t like it when you recognise their crap as ideology; they want to fool you into thinking their ideas are what’s left after the end of all ideology). Or if he’s merely a self-interest Tory liar pushing ideas he knows will render those who adopt them impotent apologists.