A new deliberative democrat
Tue, 2008-10-21 20:03
#1
A new deliberative democrat
Tue, 2008-10-21 20:03
#2
Hello all! After having read a lot about political philosophy (Rawls, Nozick, Habermas, Arendt, Zizek, Rorty, Derrida, van Parijs, Ranciere, etc.), I have become a deliberative democrat.
Although we often expect them to, governments can't make and sustain tough decisions on issues that we as citizens are unwilling to make or support. Only a public can do these things.
Moreover, democratic governments need broad public support if they are to act consistently over the long term. Their foundations are in the common ground for action that only citizens can create.
Politicians often face situations in which the nature of the problem is unclear, the goals of the public aren't defined, or values are at issue and conflict has gotten out of hand.
On major issues, it can take a decade or more to change policy. The role of deliberation is to keep that long journey on track and out of unproductive complaining and blaming.
And governments — even the most powerful — cannot generate the public will needed for effective political action. Governments can command obedience but they cannot create will.
It is up to us as members of a public to transform private individuals into citizens, people who are political actors. Citizens can create governments but governments can't create citizens.
The most straightforward definition of a deliberative democracy is a process that goes beyond the majority rule towards broader consensus.
Deliberations are much more than negotiations to reach compromises. Deliberation is a process to search, extract and exploit the unifying or universalizing potential that exists in any dialogue.
Deliberation is a specific type of debate where language gets back to its roots, i.e. altruism and cooperation.
Legitimate governments and legitimate laws are the ones who are the results of deliberation procedures.
I hope some people here will see an interest in this view of politics.
Wed, 2008-10-22 09:25
#3
Hello and Welcome!
I think I appreciate where you are coming from and professionally speaking I agree with much of what you've posted. In municipal government particularly (the level of government where I work) meaningful participation of citizens in decision-making is very important to both the development and the sustainability of policies, programs, and projects; citizens should be viewed as democratic actors as opposed to consumers of government services, placing on citizens a responsibility to be more than passive consumers and on governments a requirement for real engagement with their constituents.
All that said when I read your post and consider the nature of the state I cannot help but notice a major gap in your analysis around the role of the state. I suggest you read Lenin's the State and Revolution, if you haven't already; if you have I am curious what your thoughts were on reading it. You can find it online [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/]here[/url].
I look forward to a new perspective around here anyway [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-10-22 11:01
#4
Hey! It's nice to see that you are wasting no time and go right at the crux of the political matter. I have come to see the nature of the state as a protection agency that can easily become a racketeering organization. I think the most essential role of the state is geared toward protecting a people against foreign peoples or empires (invasions). In other words, I explain class oppression by rulers inside a country by the degree of exterior threat they feel. If paranoia is, like psychoanalysts are suggesting, at the core of human nature, a worldwide deliberative democratic process is hard to imagine but, I think, not impossible.
Wed, 2008-10-22 12:23
#5
quote:
I think the most essential role of the state is geared toward protecting a people against foreign peoples or empires (invasions). In other words, I explain class oppression by rulers inside a country by the degree of exterior threat they feel.
Hmmm, you must be a Star Trek fan? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
A state is not for the purpose of protecting all of its people; if that is the purpose of the state all states are utter failures. States protect some of their people from others of their people, and those same enfranchised folks from external threats (often using the bodies of their fellow, disenfranchised, countrymen/women). The nature of the state is class oppression, and would be so without external threats.
I do agree with you that without nation states there could be no class conflict but I feel you've come at it backwards: the nation state can be rendered obsolete by the end of class conflict but the end of the nation state will never be possible without first winning the class war. It is the class conflict which gives rise to the nation state, as opposed to the reverse.
Wed, 2008-10-22 17:41
#6
Violence is not necessary to win the class war, pursuing the ongoing collective deliberation is sufficient to win it. Think at what was needed for humanity to substitute our (post)modern societies stratified in two classes (owners of the means of production and workers) for the medieval societies based on three rigid and hierarchical orders or casts (warlords, religious cast and peasants). This largely constructive transition, which has been relatively peaceful, was possible by collectively rethinking the conditions under which natural resources can be appropriated by individuals.
Wed, 2008-10-22 17:49
#7
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]This largely constructive transition, which has been relatively peaceful, was possible by collectively rethinking the conditions under which natural resources can be appropriated by individuals.[/b]
That bears no resemblance to history as I know it!
Wed, 2008-10-22 17:57
#8
On no territory has the Bourgeoisie replaced the monarchy by violent means.
[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
Wed, 2008-10-22 20:59
#9
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]On no territory has the Bourgeoisie replaced the monarchy by violent means.[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ][/b]
I think this depends in part on how you define it. If you consider the whole transition from feudalism to capitalism, there was a good deal of violence involved. Arguably, for example, the wars of religion were part of this transition as was the slave trade and genocide in the Americas.
Wed, 2008-10-22 21:47
#10
It is true that the spirit of capitalism was at first specific to Protestants. But it is also true that Protestants could have tried to treat the (unproductive) Nobles of Europe with the same contempt they have demonstrated in their treatments of the (unproductive) Africans and New World indigenous peoples. From a deliberative democratic perspective, what is important is to convince others that the pact that the Protestants and Nobles had together (to avoid conflict in between them) was an arrangement that could and should have been extended to the rest of the World.
[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
Wed, 2008-10-22 22:00
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]It is true that the spirit of capitalism was at first specific to Protestants....[/b]
That wasn't at all what I meant. But it's late .....
Wed, 2008-10-22 22:24
#12
A misunderstanding is nothing compare to a refusal to participate in a dialogue. Even face with an explicit refusal to discuss, contemporary philosophy is not disarmed, it will invoke the concept of performative contradiction. A performative contradiction is an unresolved tension between the stated position of a person and his position as someone who expresses himself with the expectation of being understood. For example, the sentence, "I (here and now) do not exist" entails a performative contradiction of the fact that I (here and now) exist, which in turn is a precondition for my ability to make the statement. Thus, no sooner does someone objects than he commits himself to an argumentation game based on presuppositions that entangle him in a performative contradiction. Participating in a dialogue for the sole purpose of saying that one does not wish to participate represents a contradiction of a set of preconditions that are already true—if one's refusal to participate is to be intelligible.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction]http://en.wikipe...
Thu, 2008-10-23 05:48
#13
quote:
Violence is not necessary to win the class war, pursuing the ongoing collective deliberation is sufficient to win it. Think at what was needed for humanity to substitute our (post)modern societies stratified in two classes (owners of the means of production and workers) for the medieval societies based on three rigid and hierarchical orders or casts (warlords, religious cast and peasants). This largely constructive transition, which has been relatively peaceful, was possible by collectively rethinking the conditions under which natural resources can be appropriated by individuals.
Two sides with unequal relations can get together and deliberate on things, then when the talking is over each side returns to its own place in society. The dominant class does not voluntarily cede its control of the state apparatus with no exertion of force by the oppressed. In fact it has never happened that way; I invite you to study your history more carefully and examine those "enlightened" and "benevolent" monarchs which our history books look back upon with such rose glasses; ever bit of power the Bourgeoisie obtained from the nobility they did so by force or by threat of force. Besides that revolution was much simpler, it barely changed realities for the vast majority at all, nothing compared to the upheaval which eliminating the Bourgeoisie class would cause/has caused where attempted.
Thu, 2008-10-23 09:52
#14
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]A misunderstanding is nothing compare to a refusal to participate in a dialogue. Even face with an explicit refusal to discuss, contemporary philosophy is not disarmed, it will invoke the concept of performative contradiction. A performative contradiction is an unresolved tension between the stated position of a person and his position as someone who expresses himself with the expectation of being understood. For example, the sentence, "I (here and now) do not exist" entails a performative contradiction of the fact that I (here and now) exist, which in turn is a precondition for my ability to make the statement. Thus, no sooner does someone objects than he commits himself to an argumentation game based on presuppositions that entangle him in a performative contradiction. Participating in a dialogue for the sole purpose of saying that one does not wish to participate represents a contradiction of a set of preconditions that are already true—if one's refusal to participate is to be intelligible.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction]http://en.wikipe...
If that was directed at me, I assumed you'd understand what I meant: "It's late. I have to get some sleep. I'll come back to this tomorrow when I can do it more justice."
Thu, 2008-10-23 10:12
#15
quote:
Originally posted by It's Me D:
[b]Two sides with unequal relations can get together and deliberate on things, then when the talking is over each side returns to its own place in society. The dominant class does not voluntarily cede its control of the state apparatus with no exertion of force by the oppressed. In fact it has never happened that way; I invite you to study your history more carefully and examine those "enlightened" and "benevolent" monarchs which our history books look back upon with such rose glasses; ever bit of power the Bourgeoisie obtained from the nobility they did so by force or by threat of force. Besides that revolution was much simpler, it barely changed realities for the vast majority at all, nothing compared to the upheaval which eliminating the Bourgeoisie class would cause/has caused where attempted.[/b]
How can you find the motivation to write me a reply if you are so sure that you cannot alter my will without resorting to force or by threat of force? I'm convinced that you won't be able to escape from that performative contradiction without sacrificing your mental health that is, without literally becoming a madman.
Thu, 2008-10-23 10:37
#16
quote:
How can you find the motivation to write me a reply if you are so sure that you cannot alter my will without resorting to force or by threat of force?
A few quick points off the bat: 1) I hadn't assumed that you were a class-enemy, sorry [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] , 2) It is a mistake to reduce society to the interaction between two individuals, not much can be learned and a great deal will be missed, 3) I think we shall need to establish a definition for "violence" to continue.
I'm happy to reply to you here and enjoy it myself whether I change your opinion or not, so do not mistake me for someone who only derives personally satisfaction from conquest. If indeed you are an enemy and I convince you to surrender with words alone (which is in-itself no guarantee of non-violence), well, that's just one less enemy who must be subdued by violence then [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Finally (regarding that question), I'll engage with your misguided scenario: What if you enter a negotiation, make all your points, and as a result, the person on the other side does not change their position? What if they have all the power in the negotiation and simply refuse to budge? Do you resort to violence or do you surrender your position?
quote:
I'm convinced that you won't be able to escape from that performative contradiction without sacrificing your mental health that is, without literally becoming a madman.
Who is to say I am not [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-10-23 14:52
#17
quote:
Originally posted by It's Me D:
[b]What if you enter a negotiation, make all your points, and as a result, the person on the other side does not change their position? What if they have all the power in the negotiation and simply refuse to budge? Do you resort to violence or do you surrender your position?
[/b]
When you will be able to understand that resorting to violence and surrendering one's position are the same action you will see better all the potential that a deliberation contains. The analysis of Fight Club, the movie of David Fincher (1999), by Slavoj Zizek, allows us to see quite clearly that a self-directed violence seems a necessary first step to overthrow capitalism. For Zizek, the message of Fight Club is that liberation hurts. If there is a great lesson of the 20th-century history, it's the lesson of psychoanalysis: The lesson of totalitarian subordination is not "renounce, suffer," but this subordination offers you a kind of perverted excess of enjoyment and pleasure. To get rid of that enjoyment is painful. Liberation hurts.
[url=http://community.indigo.ca/posts/Reading-Chuck-Palahniuk/group-335/32095...
[ 23 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
Thu, 2008-10-23 15:08
#18
error
[ 23 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
Fri, 2008-10-24 05:10
#19
I've seen Fight Club; it was OK, nothing to write home about. I'd rather draw my lessons re: the overthrow of imperialism/capitalism from the real experiences of liberation movements around the world then from a Hollywood movie.
quote:
When you will be able to understand that resorting to violence and surrendering one's position are the same action you will see better all the potential that a deliberation contains.
My position involves violence; no contradiction there. I've had some good discussions about this before and I accept that violence is a slippery slope leading to all or none; anyone with illusions in that respect might find violence to be a surrender of their position but I'm not sure why I should and you haven't given me any reason to agree with the theory you've presented here.
quote:
If there is a great lesson of the 20th-century history, it's the lesson of psychoanalysis: The lesson of totalitarian subordination is not "renounce, suffer," but this subordination offers you a kind of perverted excess of enjoyment and pleasure. To get rid of that enjoyment is painful. Liberation hurts.
Psychoanalyzing the class struggle is a silly waste of your time IMV; being oppressed isn't somehow enjoyable and it won't be missed by anyone. The oppressors will certainly miss the old days but thats it. And of course Liberation hurts, removing a parasite is painful, especially one as resourceful and dominant as the capitalist class; you don't need a movie to learn this however, examine liberation struggles in real-world history.
In general, now that we have had some opportunity to talk, I am concerned that you've come to Babble to present us with the Truth (tm), as opposed to engaging in the sort of deliberation you claim to prize. Don't focus so hard on selling me your point and enjoy the discussion, this can be a frustrating environment for people who already have it all figured out [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2008-10-24 08:58
#20
quote:
Originally posted by It's Me D:
[b]being oppressed isn't somehow enjoyable and it won't be missed by anyone. The oppressors will certainly miss the old days but thats it. And of course Liberation hurts, removing a parasite is painful, especially one as resourceful and dominant as the capitalist class[/b]
You will have to incarnate this parasite if you want to achieve a revolution. Capitalists have all sorts of reasons to suspect their workforce to be a bunch of parasites since capitalism is the product of very methodic and relentless work by acetic Protestants. The movie Fight Club shows us the way. In order to blackmail his boss into paying him for not working, the film's hero (Edward Norton) throws himself around his boss' office, beating himself bloody before security staff arrives. In front of his embarrassed boss, the hero thus enacts on himself the boss' aggressivity towards him. The self-beating of the hero is equivalent to adopting the position of the proletarian who has nothing to lose. The revolutionary subject emerges only through this experience of radical self-degradation, when someone allows/provokes his employer to emptying him of all substantial content, of all symbolic support which could confer a modicum of dignity on him.
[url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ydjn9PY8jEkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ziz...
Fri, 2008-10-24 10:25
#21
quote:
You will have to incarnate this parasite if you want to achieve a revolution.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting here; you will have to clarify as the parasite to which I referred is hardly theoretical and quite solidly "incarnated" at present.
quote:
Capitalists have all sorts of reasons to suspect their workforce to be a bunch of parasites since capitalism is the product of very methodic and relentless work by acetic Protestants.
What? This is absolutely ridiculous; sure we've all been subjected to that old Protestant canard about hard work paying off and everyone getting what they deserve but to give any credence at all to such a warped and unrealistic world-view is beyond the pale! We are talking about the modern economy in which one class labours and the other lives off of this labour, literally harvesting the life-energy of the masses to sustain the bloated parasite of the capitalist.
quote:
The movie Fight Club shows us the way. In order to blackmail his boss into paying him for not working, the film's hero (Edward Norton) throws himself around his boss' office, beating himself bloody before security staff arrives. In front of his embarrassed boss, the hero thus enacts on himself the boss' aggressivity towards him. The self-beating of the hero is equivalent to adopting the position of the proletarian who has nothing to lose. The revolutionary subject emerges only through this experience of radical self-degradation, when someone allows/provokes his employer to emptying him of all substantial content, of all symbolic support which could confer a modicum of dignity on him.
The proletariat already has nothing to lose, it doesn't require some sort of psychological "radical self-degradation" just awakening to the real-world degradation of man which IS capitalism...
I also read over that book by Zizek, in brief (it is a pity about the format though, with missing pages). I'm not sure why you linked it, though it is reasonably interesting, aside from the fact that it refers extensively to Lenin whom I'd advised you to read earlier. Zizek appears to consider Lenin relevant today, primarily because Lenin shattered the illusions of certain leftists that the perfect revolutionary moment would arrive if we all just wait for it and that such a revolution could be accomplished within the existing political system and utilizing the existing state apparatus; he'd like to see the Left wake up to this reality today and calls on the Left to fight all oppression, see capitalism as [i] the [/i] problem, and abandon our attachment to the status quo. I agree with him on all these points and some others (though I hate his writing style and his emphasis on psychoanalysis of “key figures”). I don't, however, see how these points support your perspective which appears to be in favor of non-violent reformism within the existing system. If that’s a mis-characterization please take some of your next post away from discussing Fight Club and expand on your positions [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]
Fri, 2008-10-24 12:04
#22
My last posts were taken from pp.250-252 of the Zizek's book. Zizek is a core thinker of the New Left; Communism is the Old Left. Communism has been proposed with regard to the Protestant Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. Zizek has explained the failures of Communism and shows what he thinks is necessary for a successful revolution. He is much more pessimistic than I am.
Fri, 2008-10-24 13:58
#23
OK I read that section; much better in full (though the missing pages are annoying). Now I have a couple questions: What do you understand the pleasure of our subjection to be? How would we "actively assume" this pleasure? Speaking as a society of course, not individuals.
Sat, 2008-10-25 12:10
#24
I think Marx's declaration regarding "peaceful means" and "violent revolution" needs to be updated, using the term class struggle more explicitly.
1) The emancipation of labour can only be carried out by open class struggle (as opposed to "hidden" ones), since every open class struggle is a political struggle.
2) This open class struggle should be carried out by legal means where possible (not just voting, but preferrably anti-electoral protests and direct legislation through right of proposal and rejection), and by extra-legal means if necessary.
This takes into consideration ballot spoilage, "civil disobedience" a la MLK, illegal strikes, and more immediate measures to go along with the usual talk of taking advantage of opportunities presented by states on the verge of collapse (I'm obviously being euphemistic here).
3) Whether the outcome is peaceful or violent is entirely up to the class enemy (the rapid collapse of the Provisional Government vs. matching police brutality like in France, for example).
[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Jacob Richter ]
Sat, 2008-10-25 13:16
#25
quote:
Originally posted by It's Me D:
[b]OK I read that section; much better in full (though the missing pages are annoying). Now I have a couple questions: What do you understand the pleasure of our subjection to be? How would we "actively assume" this pleasure? Speaking as a society of course, not individuals.[/b]
The best concept freudo-marxism (Marcuse) has to answer the fisrt question is repressive desublimation: In our society, the superego is now forming a perverse pact with the id at the expense of the ego: the latter is put to sleep, and the superego instructs the id to abuse of everything.
[url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n06/zize01_.html]http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n06/z...
Actively assuming this situation means becoming revolutionary. To become a revolutionary subject, we should emptying ourselves of all stable ontological positivity. The potential of revolutionary becoming of a mass of people (a heterogeneous multiplicity) is obvious.
[url=http://www.lacan.com/zizcatpower.html]http://www.lacan.com/zizcatpower.h...
Sat, 2008-10-25 13:29
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Richter:
[b]I think Marx's declaration regarding "peaceful means" and "violent revolution" needs to be updated, using the term class struggle more explicitly.1) The emancipation of labour can only be carried out by open class struggle (as opposed to "hidden" ones), since every open class struggle is a political struggle.
2) This open class struggle should be carried out by legal means where possible (not just voting, but preferrably anti-electoral protests and direct legislation through right of proposal and rejection), and by extra-legal means if necessary.
This takes into consideration ballot spoilage, "civil disobedience" a la MLK, illegal strikes, and more immediate measures to go along with the usual talk of taking advantage of opportunities presented by states on the verge of collapse (I'm obviously being euphemistic here).
3) Whether the outcome is peaceful or violent is entirely up to the class enemy (the rapid collapse of the Provisional Government vs. matching police brutality like in France, for example).
[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Jacob Richter ][/b]
Jacques Ranciиre shows that Marx excluded the mass from the privilege of thought and art and formed an implicit alliance between philosophy and the repressive order of social hierarchy. In The Philosopher and his Poor (1983), Ranciиre makes explicit this objective alliance by studying the exclusivism and elitism of theory in the, supposedly emancipatory, writings of Plato, Marx, Sartre and Bourdieu.
[url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v006/6.4deranty.html]http:...