Logical Conclusions

If you extend and idea to its logical end and find something you don’t like is that idea then flawed?

For example an extreme deep-ecology standpoint would argue for the preservation of HIV/AIDS as the virus is living and therefore holds and inherent value. Obviously this is a crock of shit and to promote the existence of something that causes so much misery is morally reprehensible however it has been done.

While I’m sure that most deep ecologists would reject this extreme view does that make the idea flawed? It is certainly what is in the back of my mind when thinking about the issue.

Does this extend to all ideas? I think it does but I’m just not sure.

‘what are your thoughts on Chavez… does this make you happy there is hope. or sad that your doomsday prophecy is lessy doomy?’

An interesting question. I believe that Marx once commented on the fact that the existence of trade unions – while being the emancipating agent – actually prolonged capitalism because they reduced the shocking conditions of the workers making them less angry and therefore less revolutionary.

Admittedly I am a little under read on Chavez but my basic understanding is that in 2002 a US lead military coupe over threw the democratically elected leader of Venezuela (Chavez). Shortly after the people of Venezuela made their opposition to this known, reinstating their democratically elected leader.

The important thing about Chavez is his mobilisation of the grass roots. Despite a massive media campaign against him and staunch opposition from corporations and the US government he still manages to get elected time and time again in referendum and elections. He actively involves the people in budgetary matters and has had success because he appeals to the massive Venezuelan underclass which is mostly ethnically different from the minority of the people who, as always, hold the majority of the power (you guessed it, they’re white.)

Don’t hate me if the above is wrong in anyway – it could well be.

So Chavez is a people’s man and certainly the left is looking to the Venezuelan model as the great democratic emancipation. I too am quite excited at the prospects that this offers.

Does this mean that it has to get worse before it gets better?

As I have mentioned before it seems to me that it is all a matter of consciousness. I would imagine that historically most of South America are fairly politically aware, much more so than in Australia. They have also certainly had it a lot worse than Australia on many fronts. So perhaps, relative to Australia, it did get worse before it got better. Moreover, the people of Venezuela had the foresight to look beyond their corporate driven media’s smear campaign against Chavez – something largely lacking in Australia.

So I guess my response is that, with a bit of political (or class) consciousness, we don’t have to get worse to get better. We can put an end to this economic (ir)rationalism before it gets even further out of hand.

I guess underlying all of my assumptions is two things. Firstly, an overriding faith in humanity. Secondly that times will change (and I believe are changing now) for the better – history makes this inevitable – the question is ‘when?’ So I don’t think my prophecy is ‘doomy’ only in the short term – and the shorter the better. Ultimately I’m quite the optimist.

“This aggressive agenda is now in place and one important reason to recognise the ‘disproportionate power’ of the American Empire is to aid the development of a political resistance and a proper alternative. The movement that is needed can only be effective if it is global; and if it understands that the neo-liberal legs on which the imperial giant walks are not as strong as capitalist witch-doctors like to suggest (Ali 2003:198).”

I saw some graffiti on the train on my way into work this morning. As I believe the graffiti should be a corner stone of any good political campaign I thought I’d share it with the world. It read:

Macho is gay! Cadet is too… Full on

The Age has reported that a long running legal battle came to an end yesterday (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/19/1092889279005.html?oneclick=true).

The Wilderness Society (or its members acting on behalf of the Wilderness Society) have been somewhat successful in suing the CFMEU. This is indeed a sad day for the Global Justice Movement and the left as a whole.

Basically there were a bunch of hippies up trees preventing the loggers from cutting down the trees – their livelihood. So the loggers – who are generally not the most understanding and socially integrated people in the world, they are loggers for good reason – clipped a couple of the hippies over the ear (ok, punched them), shone spot lights on them and banged drums all night to keep them up.

Now the loggers shouldn’t be doing this (violence=bad) and the Otways should not be being logged. But the Wilderness Society has made a few fatal and highly unfortunate flaws here. Firstly, why are they victimising the loggers? Can’t they see that the enemy is the corporations profiting from the logging? All they are doing is attacking people who are struggling to make a living, who are social outcasts (mostly) anyway and who actually care quite deeply for the forests as it is their local area. This also fuels the claims that greenies are costing loggers jobs. This simply isn’t true. Jobs are being lost because these same corporations are downsizing, globalising and so forth which leads to less jobs and habitat loss.

Secondly, the CFMEU and the Wilderness Society are on the same side. They are united (or should be) by both a common enemy (economic rationalism which is costing jobs and wilderness) and a democratic society where workers rights and the environment are preserved and work in harmony, it’s really not that radical an idea.

Finally, they’ve taken it to the ‘man’. This is morally abhorrent to the Union Movement and makes the WS look like a bunch of wingers. Well they are a bunch of whingers.

This is at the heart of my problem with the Wilderness Society. I think there’s a lot in the fact that they are call the ‘Wilderness’ Society – a very outdated concept I’m sure many progressive environmental thinkers out there will agree. They also have appalling labour relations – all their recruiters work on a measly commission base and most struggle to make a liveable amount. I’d like to think that any progressive organisation would oppose commission based work – but not the WS.

They also completely fail to recognise the social impacts of the environment movement.

I don’t like criticising the WS, despite most people knowing that I don’t like them. We’re on the same side. But I believe their actions are irresponsible and dangerous. To the point were I feel compelled to make my objections known.

Ya Busta!

She. Has no military rank, no uniform, no weapon. Only she knows she is a Zapatista. Much like the Zapatistas, she has no face or name. She struggles for democracy, liberty, and justice, just like the Zapatista. She is part of what the EZLN calls “civil society” – a people without a political party, who do not belong to “political society,” made up of leaders of political parties. Rather, she is a part of that amorphous yet solid part of society that says, day after day, “Enough is enough!”

- Subcomandante Insurgent Marcos

———–

To the sounds of Lars Frederikson and the Bastards – Anti Social

The book Darkness at Noon is probably my favourite book. The main character is being persecuted under the regime he was instrumental in establishing. He is the sort of leader I’ve come to romanticise in the old left who rule the country by day and engage in deep philosophical issues by night.

His dieing intellectual contribution (if you will) – the one he never gets a chance to properly establish – was that of the Maturity of the Masses. His argument being that a dictatorship is needed in the initial phases of the revolution so that they can then educate the masses and raise their consciousness so that the society can then run without dictatorial rule and evoke a genuinely democratic society.

If we overlook the dictatorship part for a moment the idea is quite nice. It is essentially about consciousness raising. I’m arguing that we are undergoing a massive structural change in the world. I guess I have a great hope that this has a profound influence on people’s thinking and raises consciousness – ie so they give a fuck.

In addition civil society has probably never been more active – no, in Australia we don’t give a fuck but the rest of the world does increasingly and I’m not just talking about the Majority world here, it’s OECD countries as well (Quebec and Seattle are obvious examples).

If people want Cigars and Gay Porn that is ok but I wonder about the fundamental principle (often used by liberals and utilitarians) that “liberty as long that doesn’t infringe on the liberties of others.” I can’t help but feel there is some infringement here but this is another argument. I also would like to strive for a more enlightened society and furthermore simply remind you that no system is perfect – there will probably always be porn in one for more another, gay or otherwise.

Secondly, Roland, I must say (unless I’ve miss read) I completely reject your definition of ‘Civil Society’. Civil society is not ‘elite’ – at least the way that term is now used, particularly by the right, and it is in fact the ‘Transnational Capitalist Class’ that is the elite (as their hip pocket is testament to). Civil Society is made up of far more ‘lay’ people than academics (although academics play a very important role). In fact as it generally is ‘grass roots’ it is largely uneducated people (think Majority world) who have had their consciousness awakened and are pissed off. In addition, Civil Society is ‘Civil’ society because it is separate from the Economic and Political societies. In fact, by and large, modern day civil society actively rejects all institutional political processes – the exception perhaps being the Union movement but I would argue that it simple moves in both realms. There’s a really nice quote for this by Marcos but the book is at home so I can’t quote form it. I’ll post it at some other date.

This is, I think a fairly significant point of departure and seems to rebut most of what you have argued (correct me if I’m wrong).

However if I may continue, this Cacophonous Democracy is really spawned from ideas coming out of the Majority world (I much prefer majority world to developed or third as it reminds us all that this is the majority of the worlds population and that has positive undertones – maybe).

So, if I read you correctly, what you are arguing is that, for example, religious groups don’t want to get involved in the political process and simply want to worship. I argue that by simply doing this they are belonging to a community group and their voices are therefore represented in the cacophony. If a government, or other, does something to infringe on the liberties of this particular religious group then presumably the organisation would be vocal in opposing this – in their own self interest. Yes, this means a greater material security. Everyone wants greater material security, and should be entitled to this. In fact simply ensuring the democratic right of these people to pursuer their religious interests is central here.

Rol, it is ok for people to be apathetic – that’s their democratic right. However I’m assuming that they are engaged in civil society in one way or another because they are a member of the local footy club or church group. What I am arguing for is a) a greater level of participation on behalf of the individual but I believe that this will be a cultural (or hegemonic) development and b) that community organisations, which represent the interest of all people, be in control of the destiny of that group and that these groups have considerable political influence which is what I call ‘deep democracy’. There is nothing ‘cultural’ about it and each group will be culturally specific to the community it represents. As individuals we are the spokes that link the hubs which are community groups.

This is distinct from our current system where corporations have a highly undemocratic level on influence on the governing of our country.

If you want possible issues, it is in the fact that I am focusing on community groups (or NGOs). Quite simply these groups are increasingly vehicles for corporations to push their views. Their influence lies in their funding of these groups who are particularly venerable due to their inherently meager existence. For example the Ford Foundation provided significant funds for the 2003 World Social Forum and corporations certainly paid for the attendance of many people at the 2004 forum.

In addition, as you point out, people are looking for a greater material equity. Is this incompatible with my environmental concerns. I don’ think so and I think this opinion is unimaginative but it is a criticism that is worth while keeping in mind. More on this later.

Well the internet is down at work, at least the ADSL connection is down thanks to Telstra being SHIT and having to resort to an Optus dial-up connection (I can’t help but feel there is a certain irony here). So I am debilitated in terms of what sort of work I can do and have decided to do a posting instead.

Rol, welcome back. Allow me to address you concerns.

My argument is that we are structurally fairly static. Yes, we are in a state of constant flux but it is all within this “referential box” you refer to (I call it neo-liberalism).

My point is that I’m starting to think that there is no “good society”. The “good” things that we have achieved in our society have been changes itself. All issues are historically specific and the challenges constantly change. So there is no end point. There is no communist society (or other) that is this end point where everyone will be happy. There can never be an ‘end of history’ as all the great Meta narratives (a story with a beginning, middle and end) have implied.

We are, by our nature and contrary to a lot of commentary, creatures of change. We will never be completely happy which means we continually strive for something better. I agree that change is packaged nicely so that it doesn’t appear to be change so I guess what I’m saying is that we should embrace the change a lot more.

Therefore our societal infrastructure should reflect a great flexibility in terms of an accommodation of need. I feel that a Global Cacophonous Democracy is capable of achieving this.

I was talking to a friend the other day who took Global Cacophonous Democracy too far in a sense. Essentially it was an alteration to Anarcho-syndicalism. That’s fine – actually I quite like it – but it is restrictive of this idea to a Meta narrative. A Global Cacophonous Democracy can be transposed to any epoch or mode of production which is its beauty – its malleability. Too much malleability is problematic as it leads to an abuse of this flexibility. However if you can impose another structure underneath it yet allow the superstructure to be revolutionary from time to time then we can exist in a state that can accommodate this change.

In other words there is an economic base which determines the epoch or dominant ideological approach to the governing of a society – its government/constitution/etc. What we need to have, at all times, is a democratic process that enables the individual’s many facets to be represented by community groups. This is obviously much easier if it is a democratic society but there is no structural reason for a benevolent dictatorship to not have this sort of mechanism in place (despite being less likely). It is also important to emphasise the global nature of this idea so even in repressive regimes there is still some representation on the international agenda.

Go on – try something new

A few months back Germaine Greer wrote White Fella Jump Up.

The most significant (and somewhat repetitive) criticism of the essay was that it simply wasn’t practical.

This is perhaps the most significant hurdle faced today. Change requires thinking outside the square and (most) people just are unwilling or aren’t imaginative enough.

I’m starting to think that change itself should be our end point and the “good society” is one that is never static.

I find this fascinating:

http://www2.coca-cola.com/contactus/myths_rumors/index.html.

Further proof that Americans have no sense of irony.