Lisbon and class - the missing analysis

by margaret Tue Jul 08, 2008 22:47

Paul

While I am sure many working class people did vote no, I think it is simplistic to analyse the vote in this way. I know many middle class people who voted no from all kinds of professions/occupations.

And since the vote, when I meet new people if I get a chance without it being embarassing, I raise the issue and I am finding that people I wouldn't have expected to vote no did. For example, today I met a young woman certified accountant who was auditing an organisation I am connected with and she was a no voter and felt very strongly about it - as opposed to being a lukewarm voter either way.

The great thing is that so many people from across the class divide voted no. They weren't fooled or bullied.

And I've met a yes voter who will vote no if it is rerun to get the right result. There may be more like him out there!

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Wed Jul 09, 2008 00:02 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey. Co. Dublin

Margaret is right in that some sections of the middle class voted no, but there can be no getting away from the reality that the no vote was concentrated among the C2DE social categories as well as small farmers, while the yes vote was concentrated in the richer areas of south Dublin. Dun Laoghaire voted no while Kingstown( or as its now called Sarkozytown) voted yes. In fact the vast majority of the yes campaigners were the same social and political forces that supported Bush's invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by turning Shannon Airport into a warport
and that has led to the massive global economic crisis we are now facing. The same social and political forces in response to the crisis are now planning massive cuts in health, education and social welfare benefits instead of taxing the rich who have been the primary beneficaries of the so called Celtic tiger era. It is also no accident that the militarisation of the EU which was a key feature of the Lisbon treaty and one of the main reasons why people voted no has been ignored by the newspaper columnists like O'Toole and Waters. All they offer is war, a necessary diversion for the rich as they make to poor pay for the economic crisis.
So where to now? There can be no doubt that the political elite, the yes campaigners, now plan to pass the core parts of the treaty by way of Dail legislation without any new referendum. They have nothing but contempt and hatred for the Irish people, their loyalty is to the EU elite. The question is will they get away with it? To be honest, they could. The progressive and democratic political forces came together in a loose alliance, the Campaign Against the EU Constitution-vote no to the Lisbon treaty; but just as in France this alliance could fracture as each of the groups claim that they were responsible for the victory instead of accepting that all played a part and that victory can only be built on if it stays together. If we are to defeat these yes campaigners, these born again Redmondite Imperialists then not only do we have to stay united but we have build a wider and stronger alliance capable of turning the 54% no vote into 54% of Dail seats. Some challange, but there is no other alternative.

by Libertarian Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:40

"The result of this referendum show a vote split along class lines"

Where and what evidence do you have to show that the vote was split along class lines? Are you using dublin city communities to define this? or electoral constituencies? Or is it just another Joe Duffy analysis that takes the opinion of one person to be the opinion of everyone?

What do you mean by working class analysis?

This article is premised upon a socio - cultural assumption of working class. Yet this assumption is at odds with a political economy class based analysis. On the one hand the WSM argue that 'working class' is a collective term to describe anyone who sells their labour, yet on the other hand they use it as a popular term to describe those who are not 'middle class'. What concept of class is being used here for a class based analysis? In another article published today on Indymedia, the WSM approach class from a totally different angle than the approach taken in this article. A complete contradiction.

"The middle class have mostly agreed - why wouldn't they. The working class are naturally more sceptical........................the Irish working class has responded with it's own unity in a clear-sighted refusal to give legitimacy to a treaty that sought to trick it's way past "

This is not an analysis but empty rhetoric. There was no unity, and no collective refusal of the Lisbon treaty amongst the 'working class'. There was no class conscious refusal of Lisbon. There was a plain ordinary refusal of people to be patronised & told what to do.

Arguably there could be a class based analysis of Lisbon, but it would require a lot more investigation and analysis than this article. The first step would be to examine how you use the term class. If you use it as it is used here then you may as well use anti immigrant sentiment, anti EU, homophobia and right wing catholicism as part of why the 'working class' voted no.

However, if you take a political-economy perspective you may be able to find common fabric in relation to working class concerns over diminishing labour rights, the disconnect between the social vision of europe and the neo liberal reality, the concern over oil & food prices, justifiable fears about jobs & the economy, lack of democracy & accountability, and so on.

Whilst this would be a useful exercise I sense that there is no clear class determination as to why people voted NO. A class analysis is possible but how valid it would be is another story.

A more useful analysis would be to focus on the DEMOCRATIC reasons as to why people voted NO. I sense most people voted no because they felt patronised by being asked to vote on something they had no involvement in creating and knew nothing about.

It was a vote against a defunct political process, a two finger salute to political elites who think they know best and a reminder that people will not tolerate empty soundbites as a reason to support a political agenda. This has got nothing to do with class, but how people engage in the decision making process of the State/ EU.

The referendum result is definately not the beginnings of a political breakdown of the FF/FG excommunication of class politics from Irish society. It is a reminder that a) the political elite (similar to politcal ideologues of the far left) are completely removed from the circumstances and conditions of how ordinary people live, and b) most people, working class and otherwise, will not be patronised into supporting a political agenda that they cannot relate to in their day to day lives.

by Gaz B -(A)- - wsm (personal capacity) Thu Jul 10, 2008 06:44

I'd suggest that the confines of a 500 word article produced for a freesheet is not the place to seek a detailed and nuanced analysis on the correlation of post-industrial class stratification and voting patterns of the Lisbon treaty.

There has been relatively little detailed empirical research conducted on the treaty, the best I could find is the Eurobarometer report (linked below). The highest No vote was amongst manual workers at 74% while the highest Yes vote was amongst the self-employed at 60%. The reasons given by those who voted Yes for doing so can loosely be grouped as those based on the perceived economic benefits while those who voted No did so due to a combination of a lack of information, mistrust of politicians and fears over sovereignty.

While concerns over the democratic process and the nature of EU institutions are not uniquely confined to any one class they were more prevalent among those who have benefited least form the Celtic tiger. Is it a coincidence that the working class/socio-economically disadvantaged/C2DE social category (take your pick) feel the most alienated and distrustful of the 'democratic' process or is there a correlation between the two? I believe there clearly is. To analyse the No vote from democratic deficit point of view without relation how class (however one perfers to define it) effects the ability to have a say in the decisions that effect your life would be to miss half the picture.

by Paul - wsm (pers. cap.) Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:01

In response to Libertarian:

I agree entirely that this is not analysis - the title the indymedia editors have, in their wisdom, decided to attach to my piece - "the missing analysis" does me a mischief which, had I known, I would have protested against. This is a propaganda piece not analysis (which is practically impossible within the confines of the original 300 word brief, which I already exceeded). That clarified, lets move to the substantive.

"This article is premised upon a socio - cultural assumption of working class. Yet this assumption is at odds with a political economy class based analysis. On the one hand the WSM argue that 'working class' is a collective term to describe anyone who sells their labour, yet on the other hand they use it as a popular term to describe those who are not 'middle class'. What concept of class is being used here for a class based analysis? In another article published today on Indymedia, the WSM approach class from a totally different angle than the approach taken in this article. A complete contradiction."

If I were a Trot I'd smile patronisingly and say "Dialectics, dear boy, dialectics...". It's an apparent contradiction rather than a complete one, which relates to the difference between the 'objective' or 'political economic' definition of class as "class in itself" vs. the subjective, 'socio-cultural' "class for itself". I'm guessing you're familiar with Marx's distinction between the two. Where we differ, I'm speculating, is on the validity or otherwise of popular subjective notions of class, but here we spin off into an involved discussion over the validity of concepts like "false consciousness" and communism as dogma, programme or real movement, etc. etc.

You then insinuate that the use of popular subjective experience of class is tantamount to populism itself -

"If you use it [class] as it is used here then you may as well use anti immigrant sentiment, anti EU, homophobia and right wing catholicism as part of why the 'working class' voted no."

So to label the Lisbon No as a class event is tantamount to racism. Nice.

So you reject any class perspective on Lisbon and instead advocate -

"A more useful analysis would be to focus on the DEMOCRATIC reasons as to why people voted NO. I sense most people voted no because..."

Respectfully, I would have to say that to reject any class perspective and try and replace it with an appeal to bourgeois universal goods like "DEMOCRACY" (nice caps btw...) is the real reactionary position. It reduces critique to staying safely within the bourgeois horizon of universal political freedoms entirely detached from the economic or social sphere, thus nullifying entirely the very possibility of anti-capitalist critique. From within this context any "social vision" of Europe can be, at best, social-democratic.

by Libertarian Thu Jul 10, 2008 13:43

Paul
_____

It is certainly a piece of propaganda - a form of popular news that I personally cannot take seriously, in the same way that I cannot take the 'propaganda' of the Daily Star seriously. Both forms of information are misleading, dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, patronising and quite simply - anti democratic and the antithesis of libertarianism. Libertarianism treats the individual as a rational being capable of social understanding, critique and social activity. Propaganda is an insult to democracy & libertarianism.

There is very little in your post that I can respond to without getting lost in abstract intellectualism.

But to clarify one point: nowhere did I state nor argue that class analysis should be rejected in relation to Lisbon. That is simply absurd. I stated that there was no class analysis in the article, GAZ in the previous post gave a very articulate response to what a genuine class analysis might look like. I would recommend that the WSM take that approach and use the measurements he outlines for a genuine class based analysis to NO voters in Lisbon.

I stated that to understand why people voted no, one would be better contextualising the referendum against the democratic process surrounding decision making. This lack of democratic process (i.e. engaging people in the creation of what was on offer - an EU constitution) highlights an undermining of democracy and this I stated was the reason people voted NO. You as a self declared anarchist should surely perceive this as a victory. It is a victory for all those who have confidence in the rational capacities of people to create a genuinely participatory democratic society. For, what is anarchism but radical democracy?

By virtue of the how you use certain concepts in your post: 'a class in and of itself’, ‘reactionary’. 'Social democrat' etc, I imagine you were previously in a Trotskyite organisation as this is precisely the sort of lexical nonsense that Leninist's use when discussing politics. I would happily be a social democrat capitalist if the alternative on offer was communism as eschewed by the very writers who originally used those terms.

Now, I find it somewhat disturbing that an anarchist describes DEMOCRACY as a BOURGEOIS UNIVERSAL GOOD. In fact I find this statement quite frightening and absolutely opposed to any libertarian politics. I also hope this is a personal description and not the opinion of the WSM as a whole. It also reinforces my perception (which I don’t take lightly and wish it wasn’t the case) that the whole discourse that informs the activities of the WSM is a form of pseudo Marxism and nothing more.

I would recommend that you take serious caution when arrogantly dismissing the discourse surrounding democracy as some sort of reactionary bourgeois luxury. Why? Ask any Eastern European/ Russian worker across the city and they will give you plenty of reasons.

by Chekov Thu Jul 10, 2008 14:06

"It is certainly a piece of propaganda - a form of popular news that I personally cannot take seriously, in the same way that I cannot take the 'propaganda' of the Daily Star seriously."

You don't understand what it means then - propaganda is simply information that is intended to put forward and argue for a position. We are honest about this and do not go in for the various new-speak that has rebranded propaganda as being inherently dishonest - that's the big difference with the propaganda of the Daily Star, they pretend that their propaganda is objective comment and their propaganda is full of lies.

"Now, I find it somewhat disturbing that an anarchist describes DEMOCRACY as a BOURGEOIS UNIVERSAL GOOD. In fact I find this statement quite frightening and absolutely opposed to any libertarian politics. I also hope this is a personal description and not the opinion of the WSM as a whole. It also reinforces my perception (which I don’t take lightly and wish it wasn’t the case) that the whole discourse that informs the activities of the WSM is a form of pseudo Marxism and nothing more."

Once again you totally fail to understand the meaning. Democracy (without the shouting) is a bourgeois universal good. If you find this frightening you should take to your bedroom and you should certainly stop reading or viewing the media because you will find that an abstaction called 'democracy' is considered to be a universal good in the bourgeois liberal world-view. That's a fact and the implicit value judgement that you read into it only exists in your head.

"By virtue of the how you use certain concepts in your post: 'a class in and of itself’, ‘reactionary’. 'Social democrat' etc, I imagine you were previously in a Trotskyite organisation as this is precisely the sort of lexical nonsense that Leninist's use when discussing politics."

Whatever terminology you want to use, you can't escape from the fact that there is a gap between the structural realities of capitalism and how people conceive of their own position within the system. If you want to reject this line of thinking because of the terminology, you will only render yourself incapable of noticing the most obvious things about reality. Your bad.

I also find it highly amusing that you refer to the WSM as pseudo marxist - I think your jumbled and confused 'discourse' is the very definition of what I understand as pseudo-Marxism - a smattering of out-of-context concepts gathered from a bunch of wanky academic theoreticians and strung together with goodness knows what and all adding up to, well, I don't know actually, I don't actually have a clue what you are saying other than the fact that ITS COMPLEX AND IMPORTANT. I'm not a Marxist either, pseudo or otherwise, by the way and I consider all that neo-marxist crap to be basically useless.

I also find your absolute certainty that your own confused and ultimately meaningless theoretical mystifications are inherently superior to your poorly understood version of the WSM's politics to be the height of arrogance.

by Aragon Thu Jul 10, 2008 14:24

Libertarian said:

"Now, I find it somewhat disturbing that an anarchist describes DEMOCRACY as a BOURGEOIS UNIVERSAL GOOD. In fact I find this statement quite frightening and absolutely opposed to any libertarian politics. I also hope this is a personal description and not the opinion of the WSM as a whole. It also reinforces my perception (which I don’t take lightly and wish it wasn’t the case) that the whole discourse that informs the activities of the WSM is a form of pseudo Marxism and nothing more.

I would recommend that you take serious caution when arrogantly dismissing the discourse surrounding democracy as some sort of reactionary bourgeois luxury. Why? Ask any Eastern European/ Russian worker across the city and they will give you plenty of reasons."

I think Paul is right that many people do you use the term democracy to connote something that could be described as a 'bourgeois universal good' - i.e. a state of affairs that secures them their creature comforts and just enough freedom to keep them happy while shielding them from unpleasant realities and the hardships that they can inflict on others - knowingly and otherwise. It doesn't seem Paul was saying that democracy itself is a bourgeois universal good.

by Libertarian Thu Jul 10, 2008 15:22

I love the way you monitor the comments page Chekov to ensure any criticism of the WSM is swiftly dealt with. God forbid somebody dare critique the ivory heights of anarcho intellectualism on one of its tightly controlled mediums.

I genuinely try not to respond to your comments, for, as a wise man once said: dont engage with fundamentalists of any sort, religious, left wing or right wing, for they are absolutely incapable of compromising their ideologies to all those fools who disagree with them. Engaging with you about politics is as futile as engaging with a Christian fundamentalist about the ressurection of Jesus.

Everything that does not filter into your belief system or ideology is simply filtered out as 'missing the point', 'completely wrong', 'fail to understand the meaning', 'wanky academic theoreticans'. Your arrogance shows absolutely no bounds. Take a preview of your previous comments on this site and count how many times you dismiss other people's opinion & perspective as simply 'wrong', or 'mis understood'. I mean god forbid somebody would use the term discourse. Like, how un-anarchist is that.

Psychologists have a precise description to describe people who believe they are fundamentally right all the time, and incapable of challenging their assumptions, or incapable of respecting the perspective of others - Narcisstic Personality Disorder. I reccomend you take to your bedroom with a diagnostic test.

Now, on ths point of theoretical mystifications. All of the language you use to support your arguments of anarcho - communism began in some wanky theoreticans mind. Most of the fundamental concepts employed by Marx to understand capitalism came from Hegel. Where did Hegel get most of these terms? He made them up - particularly the concepts he employed to describe his version of the DIALECTIC.

Therefore all your basic assumptions are not only premised upon the theoretical mystifications of a Colonial supporting German Philosopher, but a philosopher born in the fucking 17th century. So, perhaps it is time you Chekov refrained from dismissing everything you dont agree with as academic post modern bullshit and begin to take seriously the possibility that your politics may be a waste of time. Or, that your politics are held by a tiny silent minority that are unlikely to genuinely make the slightest bit of difference to lives of the ordinary working class people of this country. That perhaps it is time to change - to think anew?

In fact, I would be confident that if you randomly selected 10, 000 people and presented them with your idea (for thats all it is - a good idea) of how society ought to organise itself - anarcho communism and asked them whether they thought it was a theoretical mystification or a real possible reality at least 90% would call it a theoretical mystification.

Therefore, do you think Chekov that perhaps, just perhaps - that your politics are an accumulation of intellectual bullshit?

Do you think for a second that perhaps all those millions of idiots across the globe who warmly embrace capitalism & would never ever agree to your vision of politics may actually be right?

Do you think that maybe, just maybe it is time for a slight re think about how you present your politics to people?

Do you think that there is a slight possibility that your politics are so abstract and so removed from the reality of how the vast majority of people view the world, that you may actually be wrong?

Or even, that there may be merit in reflecting upon your politics and changing some of it to reflect the world as it is today in 2008 and not as it was viewed theorugh the lens of a wanky academic theoretican in the 18th century?

I wont hold my breath,

Good fuckin luck to ye.......

by Andrew - WSM (personal capacity) Thu Jul 10, 2008 15:44

I love the way you monitor the comments page Chekov to ensure any criticism of the WSM is swiftly dealt with.

Seriously 'libertarian' this is a weird thing to write.

By my count your have 3 comments on this article to Chekov's one and your responding to a WSM article in the first place. As to 'who is monitoring what' are you aware that of the last 5 threads where you have made a comment (that is more than a one liner or a cut and paste) all five have been to have a go at the WSM (well one via a go at RAG)? I got bored going back through the advanced search at that point but I'd not be surprized if all your comments fall into this category. And at least one of these has repeated the odd idea that a WSM member replying to you = WSM 'control' of indymedia.

Your comment seems to translate into a demand that you be allowed critique the WSM at any point without having to suffer the pain of a reply (which it appears you consider akin to censorship). This might make sense in your head but its not hard to see why others have a problem getting their head around it. I'd have thought one of the things that makes the WSM slightly better than a lot of the left is that WSM members do generally try and treat these sort of discussions seriously, its a bit counter productive to suggest that is unfair in some way.

by Chekov Thu Jul 10, 2008 16:54

"I love the way you monitor the comments page Chekov to ensure any criticism of the WSM is swiftly dealt with. God forbid somebody dare critique the ivory heights of anarcho intellectualism on one of its tightly controlled mediums."

I love the way that you consider my comment to be some sort of Stasi like clamp-down on your right to spout crap - hilarious. I also love the way that you incorporate the stupid smear about indymedia being tightly controlled by the WSM - if we tightly controlled anything your 'critiques' would not be here.

"I genuinely try not to respond to your comments, for, as a wise man once said: dont engage with fundamentalists of any sort, religious, left wing or right wing, for they are absolutely incapable of compromising their ideologies to all those fools who disagree with them. Engaging with you about politics is as futile as engaging with a Christian fundamentalist about the ressurection of Jesus."

You don't understand what fundamentalism is either. You also don't understand my politics, as you have shown on many occassions. You are so intellectually lazy and self-agrandising that you don't even go to the trouble of understanding before critiquing. The reason that you don't respond to my comments is because you can't. I don't talk in your high-faluting language that is purely abstract and I have absolutely no respect for your opinions because I think they are self-serving, ill-informed and extraordinarily lacking in insight. I am also singularly unimpressed by your ideas of class which, to my eyes, are constructed purely to give yourself a pedestal upon which to preach your own genius.

"Everything that does not filter into your belief system or ideology is simply filtered out as 'missing the point', 'completely wrong', 'fail to understand the meaning', 'wanky academic theoreticans'. Your arrogance shows absolutely no bounds. Take a preview of your previous comments on this site and count how many times you dismiss other people's opinion & perspective as simply 'wrong', or 'mis understood'. I mean god forbid somebody would use the term discourse. Like, how un-anarchist is that."

Firstly, if you can find any example at all of me claiming that somebody is missing a point where I do not clearly and in concrete terms explain exactly why and where they are doing so, then I invite you to point it out. I realise that uninformed blowhards find attempts to constrain them to dealing with reality rather than straw-men to be an intolerable incursion on their right to blow off about any old thing. Too bad buddy, you spout crap in public, you may have to deal with people pointing out that it's crap in public.

You haven't even tried to address the actual contents of what I claimed were your misunderstandings. Instead you've just had a pure and simple go at me. That's a sure sign of somebody who has no case to defend. I mean, you probably realise, at some level, that you didn't actually know what propaganda meant in your last post. You are too proud to accept that you may have been wrong, so instead we get a root and branch attack on my character - fundamentalist, arrogant, etc, etc. Just what I would expect from an intellectually lazy blowhard.

"Psychologists have a precise description to describe people who believe they are fundamentally right all the time, and incapable of challenging their assumptions, or incapable of respecting the perspective of others - Narcisstic Personality Disorder. I reccomend you take to your bedroom with a diagnostic test."

The hilarious thing is that on those points where I challenged you, you don't even argue your case. You refuse to even consider the factual basis - because you have to be right and the facts are not convenient to your case. So, ignoring the facts completely, you then attribute my arguments to a psychological disorder. Beam, eye, etc. If you even put forward an argument about an alternative definition of 'propaganda' or an alternative interpretation of Paul's phrase, you wouldn't be making such an idiot of yourself - as it is you are merely refusing to even consider the facts and assuming, again without recourse to the concrete basis of the disagreement, that you can't possibly be wrong.

"Now, on ths point of theoretical mystifications. All of the language you use to support your arguments of anarcho - communism began in some wanky theoreticans mind. Most of the fundamental concepts employed by Marx to understand capitalism came from Hegel. Where did Hegel get most of these terms? He made them up - particularly the concepts he employed to describe his version of the DIALECTIC."

And here we go again, you are arguing against an imagined version of what I think. What exact words did I use that began in some wanky theoretician's mind? Where exactly, ever, in my entire life, did I employ the DIALECTIC (ALLCAPS - W00T!) in an argument ever? Here's the thing - I didn't because I think it's mystical mumbo-jumbo and I have never ever ever used such a concept ever. Of course, if I wasn't so arrogant I'd accept the fact that your makey-uppey simple-minded version of what I think is true and my own claims about my beliefs are obviously wrong - I JUST HAZ TO BE WRITE!!

"Therefore all your basic assumptions are not only premised upon the theoretical mystifications of a Colonial supporting German Philosopher, but a philosopher born in the fucking 17th century. So, perhaps it is time you Chekov refrained from dismissing everything you dont agree with as academic post modern bullshit and begin to take seriously the possibility that your politics may be a waste of time. Or, that your politics are held by a tiny silent minority that are unlikely to genuinely make the slightest bit of difference to lives of the ordinary working class people of this country. That perhaps it is time to change - to think anew?"

Therefore, all your basic assumptions about what I think are not only pulled out of your own arse, but the arguments that you counterpose to these staw-men are, as far as I can see, totally and utterly devoid of any actual content.

If you want to suggest that I should think anew, you should really get a fucking clue of what I think now, because you clearly don't have the faintest.

"In fact, I would be confident that if you randomly selected 10, 000 people and presented them with your idea (for thats all it is - a good idea) of how society ought to organise itself - anarcho communism and asked them whether they thought it was a theoretical mystification or a real possible reality at least 90% would call it a theoretical mystification."

I am 100% confident that a vanishingly small percentage of people would call anything a theoretical mystification because most people don't really use such phrases very often at all. I would imagine that a majority of people would consider anarcho-communism to be unrealisable, but so what? You seem to suffer under some sort of unshakeable assumption that I and other anarchists are deluded into thinking that our ideas have mass support - you are in fact the only person who I ever hear expressing this delusion so that you can bravely and brilliantly slay it. Well done, show us the way master. Can you give us a lecture about GRAVITY EXISTING next?

"Therefore, do you think Chekov that perhaps, just perhaps - that your politics are an accumulation of intellectual bullshit?"

I'm open to the possibility. If you showed the faintest clue about what my politics are then I might even reflect upon such a suggestion. The ideas that you attribute to me and to the WSM are total bullshit on the other hand, but they're still less full of shit than they ideas that you use to argue against the strawman. I am, of course, not stupid enough to waste my time reflecting over the total bullshit that blowhards attribute to me.

"Do you think for a second that perhaps all those millions of idiots across the globe who warmly embrace capitalism & would never ever agree to your vision of politics may actually be right?"

That's a stupid question. Firstly I don't think the world is composed of idiots. Secondly there is no objective notion of rightness of a political position - what is right depends on what you want. I am entirely sure that whatever type of thing that you want isn't the same type of thing that I want so the projection of your own value judgements onto my beliefs would be pointless, even if you did take the time to inform yourself of what I think before critiquing them.

"Do you think that maybe, just maybe it is time for a slight re think about how you present your politics to people?"

Yep. You are a witness to my new-found unwillingness to suffer fools gladly. This is a slight rethink because formerly I would patiently engage with people almost ad infinitum. Nowadays, I stop taking people seriously once they prove to me that they are fools. Do you like this slight rethink of presentation?

"Do you think that there is a slight possibility that your politics are so abstract and so removed from the reality of how the vast majority of people view the world, that you may actually be wrong?"

Another senseless question. There is no objective right or wrong in political philosophy - what is right for each person depends on what they want. The assumption that there is a 'right' politics illustrates the shallowness of your thinking. Sure there are a whole loads of things that I think are probably true which may not turn out to be true if I encounter further evidence and some of these things may cause me to change my mind about all sorts of things, but you would have to identify the particular things that I think, which you appear to consider to be surplus to requirements, before you would be in a position to even suggest questions on which I should reflect.

"Or even, that there may be merit in reflecting upon your politics and changing some of it to reflect the world as it is today in 2008 and not as it was viewed theorugh the lens of a wanky academic theoretican in the 18th century?"

Again, you have not the faintest clue what my politics are and how they are formed. It's just so much easier to assume that everybody except your own brilliant self thinks in childish cliches isn't it?

Once again, I should point out that your entire post was completed without a single idea being included that could not have been expressed as "how dare you disagree with me - you smell." Totally and utterly pathetic.

by Aragon Thu Jul 10, 2008 17:39

"While concerns over the democratic process and the nature of EU institutions are not uniquely confined to any one class they were more prevalent among those who have benefited least form the Celtic tiger. Is it a coincidence that the working class/socio-economically disadvantaged/C2DE social category (take your pick) feel the most alienated and distrustful of the 'democratic' process or is there a correlation between the two? I believe there clearly is. To analyse the No vote from democratic deficit point of view without relation how class (however one perfers to define it) effects the ability to have a say in the decisions that effect your life would be to miss half the picture."

I think this is astute. People at the lower end of the pay spectrum are naturally far less blase about their vulnerability to current economic trends than politicians and busienss people are - they know they will be the ones bearing the brunt of rightward lurches by the EU and in any case understand fine well that it is the profligacy and greed of elites like those that run the major EU institutions and their political servants who are primarily responsible for the economic downturn. Asking people in these circumstances to place further trust in politicians who have already demonstrated their arrogant incompetence was like a red rag to a bull. There surely is an interesting class analysis in this situation based on earnings - social class boundaries seem to be growing more and more blurred - though that is just personal speculation. In the wider context and speaking as a rookie, is there not a need for a comprehensive reassessment of the language and terminology that seems to dominate communism/socialism/anarchism. The terminology of early 20th century discourse might not be so helpful either given that the failed and unrepresentative totalitarianism that it tends to be associated with.

by R2D2 Thu Jul 10, 2008 18:22

Elsewhere, in the irish left review, the C2DE demographic has been placed as being "the core element of Fianna Fail’s broad class support base" and I would have seen this as pretty accepted on the Irish left. Yet what others (libertarian) seem to be arguing here is that this class analysis is perhaps attempting to put a square peg into a round hole in terms of analysis when there is just as equally a fruitful one for anarchists to be making in terms of distrust of politicians and the 'democratic process'.

by . Thu Jul 10, 2008 19:30

"I agree entirely that this is not analysis - the title the indymedia editors have, in their wisdom, decided to attach to my piece - "the missing analysis" does me a mischief which, had I known, I would have protested against. This is a propaganda piece not analysis (which is practically impossible within the confines of the original 300 word brief, which I already exceeded). That clarified, lets move to the substantive."

by Barry Thu Jul 10, 2008 21:11

Chekov said:

You don't understand what it means then - propaganda is simply information that is intended to put forward and argue for a position. We are honest about this and do not go in for the various new-speak that has rebranded propaganda as being inherently dishonest - that's the big difference with the propaganda of the Daily Star, they pretend that their propaganda is objective comment and their propaganda is full of lies.

There is no difference between the WSM propaganda and the tabloids. If you were in control of the media we would be filled with just as much biased bullshit as we are now. In fact it would be worse. Look at how you react as soon as your stuff is criticised.

by MichaelY - CAEUC/iawm Thu Jul 10, 2008 21:36

Reading carefully the content and the between-the-lines messages coming out of this thread, can I, who wouldn't dare to call myself either an anarchist or a libertarian, suggest that a WSM comrade distributes an analysis and a few proposals for the way forward of the NO side to the forthcoming National Meeting of NO activists, due to take place on Sunday 11.00 - 17.30 in Dublin's Teachers Club.

Before I am attacked, let me say I am fully aware that the WSM in its wisdom decided not to partake in the CAEUC Campaign and did the good work it did on its own. There were libertarian comrades active in the CAEUC however on an individual capacity.

This invitation, therefore, is not a ploy to get them involved in something they don't want to be in. It's only a strictly personal thought - an idea - some of the activists who will be coming from all over the 32 Counties to Dublin, and the rest of us who live closer but not Indymedia regulars may want to read (and listen to?) a WSM paper.....and WSM comrades may benefit from listening to other peoples experience

I was amazed earlier today when a WSM comrade called the CAEUC office and enquired about plans of the demo against the Sarkozy visit due to take place on the 21st......I gave him all the details and I hope he, or any of his comrades, would turn up to the organising meeting.

-Ends

by MichaelY - CAEUC/iawm Thu Jul 10, 2008 21:39

Sunday 21st - I forgot to put it in - my mistake
It's in the Events section with more detail

by Paul - wsm (pers. cap.) Thu Jul 10, 2008 23:40

"By virtue of the how you use certain concepts in your post: 'a class in and of itself’, ‘reactionary’. 'Social democrat' etc, I imagine you were previously in a Trotskyite organisation as this is precisely the sort of lexical nonsense that Leninist's use when discussing politics. I would happily be a social democrat capitalist if the alternative on offer was communism as eschewed by the very writers who originally used those terms."

Imagine away, the fact is that I have been an anarchist since my late teens for all of my adult life. I would say I've probably read more Marx than your average trot (who tend to prefer rubbish by Lenin and Engels). But also of course, Kropotkin, Malatesta and many others, not least of which William Thompson who started it all. But I digress... Possibly a more relevant trivia related to my background is that I spent most of my early life growing up in Switzerland - a country where all acts of government must be put to a citizen's referedum. In addition, it's confederal constitution is such that if the proposal to consititute the EU on the Swiss model was put forward (which it won't), all those left and socialist-minded opponents of the current ongoing process of EU constitution who currently shelter behind the "democratic" flag wouldn't have a leg left to stand on. It also means I have little time for people who talk of "democracies" as if they were things, as for the notion that the system of elective dictatorship most of the rest of Europe labours under, constitutes "democracy" can only make me laugh bitterly. I should also point out, that Switzerland's system of direct democratic referendum is currently being used by the neo-fascist Schweitzer Volkspartei (currently the largest party in government) to raise a referendum to ban the erection of minarets in Switzerland. Classical anarchists had much to say about the use of majority rule as a means of oppressing minorities, and let's not forget that Hitler was elected... All this to say, that no amount of democratic reform is going to make us equal in a society where the twin relations of private property and exchange produce a schizoidal society divided into two spheres - one of the political, in which we are all 'formally' equal - the other of the economic where the great mass are enslaved to the propertied minority.

"Now, I find it somewhat disturbing that an anarchist describes DEMOCRACY as a BOURGEOIS UNIVERSAL GOOD. In fact I find this statement quite frightening and absolutely opposed to any libertarian politics. I also hope this is a personal description and not the opinion of the WSM as a whole."

With respect to Aragon, I do dismiss "democracy" as a (bourgeois) universal good. I am against bogus ethico-political universals as they propagate the self-serving fantasy of political equality - the bourgois horizon, within which the other side of the coin - the economic inequality and slavery - cannot be either seen or discussed.

None of this is new, people have been working on this ever since the French revolution failed to deliver real freedom for the peasants and workers of that land and elsewhere. In its initial stages the nascent socialist movement had no other tools to conceptualise the problem than to take the newly available concepts of bourgeois freedom and stretch them outside of their political horizon into the economic or social sphere - so it was that people began to talk of the need for a social democracy to complement the new political democracy, to make the latter's promise of 'liberty', 'equality' and 'fraternity' into a reality, rather than an empty hypocrisy.

But to stretch concepts that were designed to create, validate, naturalise and reinforce this schizoidal split-brain society is always to fight a losing battle against them retracting back to within the horizon they define and is proper to them. Further, attempting to re-appropriate these terms and give them subversive meanings can only obstruct the effort to spread ideas given that when people hear the familiar terms they will understand the familiar meanings of them, not the new ones would-be revolutionaries are trying to shoe-horn into them. Hence the meaning shift from social democracy's original meaning (around long before Marx, Lenin, etc, btw) to it's current sense of capitalism with free band-aids. So in this sense, I have to say a statement like: "What is Anarchism but radical democracy" appear to me to be not only profoundly ignorant of the actual history and politics of anarchism, but an indication that what is at issue here is not a surfeit of imagination, but a lack of it.

by Aragon Fri Jul 11, 2008 00:48

That's interesting food for thought Paul. Allowing for what you say, though, it still seems to me that the kernel of your argument is not that the notion of democracy as defined in its truest form is of itself objectional to you, but more that it seems unlikely that it is attainable given the nature of things/people etc and is therefore a foolish ideal to pursue.

But isn't it the case that any principle is more honoured in the breach than the obeservance: honesty for instance? People bandy the word around criminally, use it and abuse it in every possible way but ultimately it's something that in its true sense has undeniable worth and meaning to people. The fact that it's as abused as it is doesn't change the fact that it is still worth pursuing in its true sense.

by Ois Fri Jul 11, 2008 02:51

Now, on ths point of theoretical mystifications. All of the language you use to support your arguments of anarcho - communism began in some wanky theoreticans mind. Most of the fundamental concepts employed by Marx to understand capitalism came from Hegel. Where did Hegel get most of these terms? He made them up - particularly the concepts he employed to describe his version of the DIALECTIC.

Therefore all your basic assumptions are not only premised upon the theoretical mystifications of a Colonial supporting German Philosopher, but a philosopher born in the fucking 17th century. So, perhaps it is time you Chekov refrained from dismissing everything you dont agree with as academic post modern bullshit and begin to take seriously the possibility that your politics may be a waste of time.

So hang on lets get this straight. Chekov is an anarchist communist and therefore draws on the anarchist communist tradition which draws on the work of bakunin, kropotkin, de paepe, malatesta etc. and they drew on the work of marx and marx drew on the work of hegel. This is like a game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Also to be pedantic Hegel was born in the 19th century not the 17th.

Or, that your politics are held by a tiny silent minority that are unlikely to genuinely make the slightest bit of difference to lives of the ordinary working class people of this country. That perhaps it is time to change - to think anew?

To think anew by abandoning class analysis, class politics and the commitment to communise the means of production in favour of developing a 'Democratic Left'.

This thought has been thought before.

by P.Sephologist Fri Jul 11, 2008 03:23

These polling results (see link) clearly show that rejection of Lisbon did not come from the right-wing,-despite assertions by some commentators.

"When it came to party affiliations, a majority of Fianna Fáil supporters, 60 per cent, voted Yes. However, the 40 per cent of Fianna Fáil supporters who voted No comprised the biggest element of the No vote as broken down by party support. Fine Gael voters were evenly divided, with 51 per cent voting Yes and 49 per cent voting No, while 55 per cent of Labour supporters and 57 per cent of Green Party supporters voted No. Sinn Féin was the only party whose supporters were completely in tune with the party's position, with 95 per cent voting No."-Irish Times, July 11
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0711/1....html

by Ois Fri Jul 11, 2008 03:39

Sorry Hegel was born in the 18th century not the 19th.

by Libertarian Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:10

An article rather than champagne socialist propaganda:

A STRIKING feature of the recent referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was a massive difference in the class composition of those who voted No and Yes, according to an analysis of the results of an opinion poll carried out for the European Commission.

Among manual workers, 74 per cent voted No to the treaty while among the self-employed, 60 per cent voted Yes. There was a corresponding difference between the more educated who voted Yes and the least educated, who voted No.

Prof Richard Sinnott of UCD, who specialises in analysing voter behaviour, said that in a society where there has been little evidence of class voting in elections or referendums, the class factor in the treaty vote was substantial.

He was speaking at the European Commission offices in Dublin where he presented an analysis of the survey carried out among a sample of 2,000 people who were polled in the days after the referendum. Prof Sinnott also presented an analysis of the regular twice-yearly Eurobarometer poll, the last one of which was conducted in April during the referendum campaign.

The highlights of the survey, which have already been published, showed that a majority of women and young people voted No, while a majority of men and older people voted Yes.

The main reason given for voting No was a lack of knowledge about the treaty, with 22 per cent of No voters holding that view. The main reason given by Yes voters for their decision at 32 per cent was that it was in Ireland's best interests.

When it came to party affiliations, a majority of Fianna Fáil supporters, 60 per cent, voted Yes. However, the 40 per cent of Fianna Fáil supporters who voted No comprised the biggest element of the No vote as broken down by party support. Fine Gael voters were evenly divided, with 51 per cent voting Yes and 49 per cent voting No, while 55 per cent of Labour supporters and 57 per cent of Green Party supporters voted No. Sinn Féin was the only party whose supporters were completely in tune with the party's position, with 95 per cent voting No.

One of the remarkable features of the poll was that 67 per cent of voters thought the No campaign was most convincing, with just 15 per cent giving that accolade to the Yes campaign. Even among Yes voters a majority of two to one thought the No campaign more convincing.

More than half of the voters only made up their minds on how they would vote during the final weeks of the campaign, indicating that the poor quality of the Yes campaign played a significant part in the outcome.

While lack of knowledge of the treaty was cited as the most common reason for voting No, the second reason given was to protect Irish identity, followed by safeguarding Irish neutrality.

When taken with the Eurobarometer poll, which showed a jump in the number of people who believe national identity is more important than European identity, it appears that this was also an important factor in the result.

However, there are apparent contradictions between the two polls. The Eurobarometer poll showed a substantial majority of people still believe that membership of the EU was good for Ireland and that the country had benefited from membership.

It also showed that institutions like the European Parliament and the European Commission generated a much greater level of trust than national institutions like the Dáil while a substantial majority of Irish people supported a European common foreign policy and even a defence and security policy. Yet a comparison of the Eurobarometer polls in Ireland and Denmark, carried out by Prof Sinnott, found striking differences. Danish voters know far more about the EU but Irish voters had a much stronger attachment to their national identity. The attachment to national identity in Ireland is the second highest in the EU, with only Britain feeling stronger on the issue.

Copy left 2008 The Irish Times

by topcat Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:53

You can call wsm a lot of things but this libertarian guy has obviously abandoned class politics for social democracy and made himself perfectly at home with the logic of capital. He really ought just suck it up and join labour or sinn fein, except that would remove his ability to be a big fish in a small pond. I will look forward to hearing him lecture bitterly at the institute of technology in carlow or drogheda in the future. Perhaps get himself a position as a senator in later years.

by champagne socialist Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:29

... by Stephen Collins (to give the attribution) on July 11(today). See link

by Paul - wsm (pers. cap.) Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:22

Aragon: "That's interesting food for thought Paul. Allowing for what you say, though, it still seems to me that the kernel of your argument is not that the notion of democracy as defined in its truest form is of itself objectional to you, but more that it seems unlikely that it is attainable given the nature of things/people etc and is therefore a foolish ideal to pursue."

Not really, my challenge to the concept of "democracy" is two-fold.

The first, lesser, is to attack the concept of "a democracy", which is to me as absurd as the concept of "a fast" (as in velocity, not abstention from food). To me democratic is a relative assessment, like speed. You can certainly legitimately say things like "The Swiss constitution is radically more democratic than the Irish one" in the same way that you can say "Louis Hamilton is faster than my mum" - not only is it relative, it is also contextual, in the latter case, the context of "racing motor cars" is required. It makes as much sense to say "Switzerland is a democracy" as it does to say "Louis Hamilton is a fastness". Like speed, democratic-ness or undemocratic-ness is a relative property of a specific process. For example we can say that "the 'horizontal' organisational practices evolved within the anti/alter-globalisation 'movement of movements' are more democratic than the practices of bolshevik-modelled leftist parties of a previous generation". And, if we share similar libertarian-oriented politics, we can judge that this is a good thing. But for me it is not simply a good thing in and of itself, but from a more utilitarian point of view, in so much that it helps the movement of movements to develop creatively etc.

Which brings me onto the second, more important critique - the fact that we are at war. By that I don't mean some melodramatic statement meant to foreclose debate or, still less, act as moral justification for bone-headed militarist voluntarism, but that we live in a fundamentally divided society. One where the logic of politics & human desires is confronted by the logic of capital and profits. This division, in turn divides humanity into classes. In this condition any pretence to "impartiality" is bullshit. Everybody is partisan, all journalism is propaganda. The main difference between WSM propaganda and the Daily Star, for example, is that we are open about our agenda. Whereas the Daily Star's agenda - "we exist to defend the status quo, a society where the rich get richer and our readership must be distracted as much as possible from the fact that this makes them poorer and evermore powerless over their own lives" - is an unspoken and understandably hidden one. A year or two ago I saw Mario Tronti speak in London and one of the things he said that stuck in my mind was roughly: "It is not the task of theory to claim a detached impartiality, but to try to predict the future course of capitalism, to arm itself to the teeth and then to lay in wait on that path to ambush it, being prepared for a desperate fight for death or victory"

My argument is that while you can make a statement like "The Swiss constitution is more democratic than the Irish", that in no way allows to to say "Switzerland is less of a right-wing capitalist society than Ireland". The fact that capitalist society is split into political and economic spheres means that any attempt to advance a progressive agenda that limits itself to the political sphere and does not set itself, from the outset, as principle goal, the ending of that fundamental separation, is doomed to simply reproduce the current system, any reforms notwithstanding.

by Aragon Fri Jul 11, 2008 13:37

Do you think there are no such thing as worthwile ideals, then?

And wouldn't all this apply to the concept of anarchy as much as to democracy - i.e. both are abstract ideas? I'm not convinced by what you say so far - it seems you have overcomplicated things a bit. There is nothing wrong with pursuing ideals such as anarchism or democracy if you believe in them. Do you think the statements 'I am an anarchist' and 'I am a democrat' are different in principle? (I don't mean to ask what is the difference between anarchism and democracy, btw.) Both are notions, ideals and I can't see why one would be more inherently bourgeois than the other. The terms might be used incorrectly by sections of society - as happens in both cases. Maybe you are allowing your dislike of bourgeois thought to contanimate your perception of an innocent concept that cannnot be responsible for how people will eff around with its meaning. In the same way that anarchism is commonly misrepresented (violent, chaotic etc) - often by bourgeois people too, democracy suffers a similar fate. The goons who attempted to depose Chavez in Venezuela were chanting 'democracy, democracy, democracy! when they heard how every democratic organ of state had been immediately shut down by coup organisers. They were claiming that by getting rid of the elected president they were restoring democracy. Poor old democracy. I agree with you that a bourgeois notion of democracy is superficial and self-serving.

Isn't it true to say, eg. that in Ireland and the UK we live in politically capitalist societies with elements of democracy? Governments talk about capitalism as if it were merely a principle governing commercial activity - and pretend that it can exist happily within or side by side with democracy. The principles of capitalism are in direct conflict with the principles of democracy - it's another way of thinking and behaving altogether - an entire system in its own right and it has been canibalising co-existing democracies (such as they were/are) wherever it has been encouraged to flourish.

by non-Leninist Marxist Fri Jul 11, 2008 14:15

This is new (your comment above)...and possibly a break with the WSM's position on democracy. You are clearly a utilitarian, something of a philosophical throwback, I must say. So now we have a strand of utilitarian anarchism within the WSM, with a reduced emphasis on the need for a truly democratic society. Interesting.

by Aragon Fri Jul 11, 2008 14:25

"Like speed, democratic-ness or undemocratic-ness is a relative property of a specific process."

But process is a big thing - a huge thing - it's what is meant by government, legal system, administration, co-operative or whatever - and all of these things combined. All forms of organisation are about process - who does what - when, where and how. The nature and fuctioning of those process are collectively defined by various political theoriesand principles such as anarchism/fascism/democracy/capitalism or whatever - sometimes a mixutre of them all. I don't mean to try and tell you anything you don't already know but want to explain where I'm angling from. It's not clear exactly why you are singling democracy out as something overrated or whatever.

I agree with your statement above - a democracy is a matter of the degree to which the processes by which people organise are democratic in nature. Many so-called democracies don't actually meet the standard which logically, I suppose, would have to mean a form of collective organisation that was at least 50% democratic? Dunno???

by Paul - wsm (pers. cap.) Fri Jul 11, 2008 16:36

Aragon:
"Do you think there are no such thing as worthwile ideals, then?"

I'm tempted to say, the quick answer is no, not as such. I think we're approaching diminishing returns with this. I suspect the basic issue is that, despite the fact that we're using many of the same words, we're basically talking radically different languages, certainly from different philosophical bases, anyway. As I tried to indicate in the above, my approach to concepts and thought are that they are products of human labour and should be judged by their utility as tools, without any intrinsic value outside of the actual uses they are put to in the wider contexts of society - and in our society, that means in the wider context of struggle. To me the word "ideal" has the connotation of a transcendent value, one which human needs and desires can be sacrificed to - c.f. republicanism. I am an atheist so I reject obedience to such transcendent ideals in the same way I reject obedience to any deity. No Gods, No Masters, No Transcendent Values (you can see why the longer version never caught on... :)

>>"And wouldn't all this apply to the concept of anarchy as much as to democracy - i.e. both are abstract ideas? I'm not convinced by what you say so far - it seems you have overcomplicated things a bit. There is nothing wrong with pursuing ideals such as anarchism or democracy if you believe in them. Do you think the statements 'I am an anarchist' and 'I am a democrat' are different in principle?"

To me the question "Do you think the statements 'I am an anarchist' and 'I am a democrat' are different in practice" is the important one. Yes, I think there is a difference between the two statements. Anybody brought up like most people in this state, to be told at school that "Ireland is a democracy" will understand by the first statement, that you are a defender of the Irish state. They may not know what the hell you're talking about, by the second statement, but at least that's a far better start than the first. In common discourse there is such a thing as "a democracy", whereas there isn't such a thing as "an anarchy" - there is such a thing as "anarchy" - understood as a state of chaos, but that's another story. By anarchism I understand not an ideal or goal, but the proper name of a historic and actual political tradition and tendency. My goal is the creation of a post-capitalist society. Compared to the significance of the practical question, the operations necessary to transform the question into one "in principle" end up removing all of the real factors that make the question worth answering.

"Isn't it true to say, eg. that in Ireland and the UK we live in politically capitalist societies with elements of democracy? Governments talk about capitalism as if it were merely a principle governing commercial activity - and pretend that it can exist happily within or side by side with democracy. The principles of capitalism are in direct conflict with the principles of democracy - it's another way of thinking and behaving altogether - an entire system in its own right and it has been canibalising co-existing democracies (such as they were/are) wherever it has been encouraged to flourish."

I disagree. The principles of democracy are not in direct conflict with capitalism at all - the democratic principle is the political face of the capitalist coin which has the rule of money and the state on the other side. The very concept of making decisions separated from the act of carrying them out - that there is a political/legislative function separate from an executive function - presupposes the state and the wage. Otherwise who are we issuing orders to when we vote? To ourselves? You don't issue orders to yourself - you reach mutual agreements - agreements between actors/producers about the creation of future acts/products are a world away from voting orders for somebody else to carry out.

For me, a future post-capitalist free society where the currently separated spheres of the political and the economic have been reintegrated into a voluntary association of producer-consumers, will not be a democracy any more than it will be an economy.

by Joe Byrne Fri Jul 11, 2008 16:45

Michael Y the Sunday meeting is not in the events section. Also July 21 is a Monday so is it July 20 for the meeting ?
Thanks Joe B

by Dec Mc Carthy Fri Jul 11, 2008 17:46

There is a galling and wilful ignorance in the way Libertarian has pursued his arguments here but he has already got criticism in spades for this so I need not expand on this too much. I will say though as usual Libertarian has taken a couple of interesting insights which might be usefully thought through but has instead completely overextended his critique, distorted the facts and ensured that his ideas can be dismissed out of hand. Why he does this is really beyond me.

Nonetheless, it has thrown up some interesting discussion. I think Paul is spot on in pointing out that any genuinely radical project has to overcome the seperation of politics, in terms of values, ideals and representation and economics. However, (like Aragon?) I think it might be worth pausing here and considering if some of Libertarian's remarks have a value beyond the specific context of the debate.

In my opinion Libertarian says two things that might be usefully seperated from the wreckage of his 'Anybody but WSM argument'-firstly that there are ambiguities in the way we in WSM understand class and that we move between a socio-cultural an economic notion of class. In crude terms I do I think that we, inevitably, move between the two concepts but largely use the second. However, if we are to develop a radical politics capable of overcoming the false seperation of politics and economics we will need to analyse in a more nuanced way the relationship between these two concepts. This is defintely something which we could give more attention to in the future.

In fact looking at how we understand such relationships and intervening to chage the way these things are commonly interpreted is what radical politics is about- making and remaking collective solidarity through political thought and action in a way that is emancipating and ultimately capable of winning the war. This brings me to the second point, an insight in my view squandered by Libertarian in his desire to score points. That democracy as a concept is readily understood within popular culture and that anarchists can usefully use this idea by extending the concept of democracy to the economic and social sphere. Chomsky has often made a related point arguing that the diffusion of the idea of democracy is a social gain, made through the activity of radicals over the past 200 hundred years, which is often glossed over or forgotten altogether. In other words we are so busy inspecting the damage we forget what we have won important space and that radical ideas have already fundamentally altered the way we think of ourselves and social relations. (By the by I suspect part of the traditional radical antipathy to the word democracy was as much shaped by Soviet realpolitik as a disgust for the blandishments of liberal democracy). Now that does not mean,Libertarin style, that I am now going to denounce ny erstwhile comrades in the WSM for being ignorant of history or Soviet stooges.

Anyway, while acknowledging that Chekov is correct that liberal democracy is one of the most significant ideas deployed by the elite to defend their power and Paul's related point that the seperation of questions political and economic power is fundamental to the capitalism this does not mean that the language and idea of democracy cannot be reshaped in a meaningful way by anarchists. Creating a genuine democracy in terms of social relations, the distribution of political power and economic goods is one way, and perhaps necessary way, of arguing for anarchism. Not, before anyone replies, in the sense that Habermas, Mouffe and the like mean democracy-I mean an egalitarian, free and just society. This process, of course, demands that we tear asunder the self satisfied myths of liberal democracy but to play on Tronti's remark cited by Paul why throw away the sharpest most readily available shiv when you are in the middle of a fight?

by Chekov Fri Jul 11, 2008 18:12

I suspect that I agree more with Dec than I do with Paul, but I'm not entirely sure if I follow Paul's argument properly.

In terms of whether the abstract idea of democracy is something that anarchists can use, I think it is, while acknowledging Paul's point that the actual content of the democracy in any process is the important point. I don't think that this is merely a question of semantics - is the word 'democracy' so intrinsically linked to the system of liberal representative parliaments within capitalism - a system with minimal democratic input - so as to make it misleading when used?

I don't think it is - we can talk about democratic organisations, democratic workplaces and so on and people get some idea of what we mean. It's also the case that the notion of democracy far predates the modern state and the practices among the male citizenry of ancient Athens, where the concept was first formalised, were extremely democratic by any standards.

I also think that the concept of 'democracy' even in its liberal capitalist sense is not merely associated with a particular form of government. It is also generally associated with certain freedoms, which may be often illusory given economic constraints, but they do go some way to making life somewhat more pleasant for most people.

So, overall, I think I somewhat disagree with Paul as regards the usefulness of the term. On the other hand I don't think there is any real difference in vision over the type of thing that we all want - societies which give all those affected by decisions an input into those decisions in all realms, including the economic.

by Aragon Fri Jul 11, 2008 20:15

Ask Noam Chomsky to define democracy and then ask George Bush to define democracy :-)

You'll get pretty different answers. You seem to accept that Bush's definition is the accurate one - even though a majority of self-professed democrats abhor his interpretation of the idea.

Your dislike of democracy is, from your last post, based not on the real meaning of democracy but on how the ideal has been corrupted to serve a capitalist agenda. Although you seem to claim that this corrupted version of 'democracy' has been generally accepted, I agree with other posters that the term still means what it is supposed to mean to a meaningful degree.

by non voter Sat Jul 12, 2008 17:57

Whatever way we express its shortcomings and the distance between the idea and the reality, we need to recognise that as a system of social organisation it was impossible without the capitalist system and thanks to the threat posed by industrial workers many of whom were migrant or displaced in the mid 19th century and thus divorced finally from pre-capitalist models of feudal or serf nature, extended franchise offered the masses their votes and literacy.

Dealing with that how to explain that ought be as important to any theorist as how to take the snobbery out of your mammy or better still your next door neighbour's mammy.

by MichaelY - CAEUC/iawm Sat Jul 12, 2008 19:09

The NO Campaign National Meeting is on Sunday July 20th - and it is in the events section of Indymedia.

It will take place in Dublin's Teachers Club, Parnell Square and registration will start at 11.00.

Session I will start at 11.30 chaired by Galway Independent Councillor Catherine Connolly. Discussion will focus on the politics of the NO campaign (nationally) over the next period and a presentation of a paper on proposals for the structure of the campaign. Any other paper received in good time on these subjects will be circulated to participants.

We will break at 13.30 for tea and snadwiches.

Session II will start at 14.00 and will be chaired by independent Councillor Joan Collins. It will incorporate six presentations from friends/comrades from France, Germany, Austria and possibly the Netherlands and a full discussion will follow.

The general theme of the Conference is: Building a movement across Europe against the politics of the Lisbon Treaty.

We hope to finish by 1730.

While NO activists are more than welcome, this Conference is NOT a Public Meeting.

Contact: www,sayno.ie
CAEUC Office: 01- 8727912

by Aragon Sat Jul 12, 2008 19:45

It's thought to have existed in some shape or form since, er, round about the beginning of the 5th century. It certainly did not arise out of capitalism but was adapted and distorted by capitalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

by Paul - wsm (pers. cap.) Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:21

But if the Athens of Solon, Cleisthenes and Pericles was not a capitalist society, it was very much a class society, one founded on the appropriation of suplus (slave) labour by a parasitic class. Also an imperialist society as well - c.f. the Delian league etc.

Actually, a historical look at the growth of Athenian democracy in the 5th C. BCE, in conjunction with the growth of (slave-mined) sliver money, slavery, imperialism and the military innovations (hoplite, trireme) which brought the lower classes (Zeugitai and Thetes) into power, is a good idea for an article situating/problematising democray, I shall get to it - thanks for the idea. In the meantime I leave you with this quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isonomia

"Although Herodotus uses the word δημοκρατια (democracy) it is to isonomia (equality) that he refers when he sets his three tests for the system of government which we now know as democracy:

The rule of the people has the fairest name of all, equality (isonomia), and does none of the things that a monarch does. The lot determines offices, power is held accountable, and deliberation is conducted in public. (Herodotus quoting Otanes c492BC[3]
[...]
Aristotle agrees that democracy and isonomia are linked: "Democracy arose from the idea that those who are equal in any respect are equal absolutely. All are alike free, therefore they claim that all are free absolutely... The next is when the democrats, on the grounds that they are all equal, claim equal participation in everything."
[...]
Along with isonomia, the Athenians used several terms for equality all compounds beginning with iso-: isegoria (equal right to address the political assemblies), isopsephos polis (one man one vote) and isokratia (equality of power). The Athenian concept of equality never spread to the social and economic spheres such as equal distribution of land or cancellation of debts which were subjects of debate in other city states." [emphasis added]

And, lest we forget, the same society that gave us δημοκρατια (democracy) also gave us οἰκονομία (economy).