[WS:] But this sounds awfully naive. How on Earth are we going to have a deliberative democracy in a social environment other than department faculty? It would be difficult to imagine it working at the university level - let alone society at large.
The problem with these programmes is that they are stuck in the artisan mode of thinking, which for most people with real world jobs is a Disneyland utopia, an advertising slogan associated with health food products. In the world of large organizations, the only way to ensure fairness is government regulation of these organizations - but that is an anathema to artisan mode of thinking. The only trick these folks can pull is small town/artisan/anarchist governance utopias, which have zero chance of working in real life.
I think Orwell missed the mark talking about "weird" types attracted to Socialism. What makes them "weird" is not the cause they espouse (environmentalism, feminism, etc.) but their individualism associated with artisan mode of production. The central trope of this mode is the unique character of the individual manifested in many ways: in the product (a product of one artisan is different from those produced by other artisans,) the mode of production (methods used by one artisan differ from those used by other artisans,) governance (guild-type association of individual producers, and the life style (e.g. a "weird" dress code that stands out from the crowd.) There is nothing socialist about these guys (in the sense of the primacy of the social in the economy) - they are basically petite bourgeois sans prudish morals.
Wojtek
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, SA wrote:
>
>> http://nycga.cc/2011/09/24/principles-of-solidarity-working-draft/
>>
>> I don't get it. Why the Unitarian-therapeutic tone, the prefatory
>
> hand-wringing and throat-clearing? [....] Why not a manifesto that says
>>
>> 1. Here are some things we don't like about Wall Street.
>>
>> 2. Here are some things we don't like about current society. (In 30 words
>> or less - e.g., it's insufficiently free, democratic, and equal. That's all
>> you need.)
>>
>> 3. Here's why this gathering can help to change (1) and (2). Join us.
>
> My impression of these guys is that their primary goal is to set up a
> deliberative democracy -- where everyone has their say and everything gets
> talked through. It's kind of the ideal of democracy of which all other
> forms are pale compromised images. It excites them to be a part of it, and
> they think it will excite others. And that's why they think it will spread.
>
> So what you're calling prefatory isn't prefatory to them. For them, it's
> the essence of what they're doing. This is their attempt to articulate
> principles of deliberative democracy -- not to articulate a program for
> change. Their program so far is: set up deliberative democracies like this.
> Recreate townsquares in a 21C form in all major cities. And then we'll
> have the beginning of democracy. And out of that will grow a program that
> people honestly agree on -- which they can't do until there is a democracy
> where they can really discuss it in.
>
> So as for point 3, I don't think that's how they see their appeal. They
> don't see their demonstration as basically an amplifier for a message. I
> think rather they think people will come out of some combination of
> curiosity, relief (that someone is doing something) and solidarity -- and
> then, upon coming, some of us will be just as excited as they are by the
> pleasures of being part of a deliberative democracy as they are. And that
> is how they will grow: by spreading enthusiasm for democracy rather than
> getting people to sign onto a message.
>
> As for point 2, I think they do kind of say what you're asking for that in
> the first paragraph that is above what you quoted: they're against economic
> and social injustice and political disenfranchisement. That's not as snappy
> as you put it. But it's kind of similar and it's still a draft. I see no
> reason theoretically why that first paragraph couldn't end up very much like
> what you're suggesting if a Cato like you were sitting in there to advocate
> for it.
>
> As for point 1, besides the fact that Wall Street is all over their signs, I
> suspect they don't want that phrase in their manifesto precisely because
> they care about duplicability. Wall Street for them is the best symbolic
> place in NY. But in Chicago or LA there are symbolic places that will be
> the best for them. In that sense, it's not privileged.
>
> All these are merely my guesses at interpreting what they seemed to be
> saying as a whole.
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>