"And today, in the era of the worldwide triumph of democracy when no leftist dares to question the premises of democratic politics, it is more crucial than ever to bear in mind Lukacs's reminder, in his polemics against Rosa Luxemburg's critique of Lenin, as to how the authentic revolutionary stance of endorsing the radical contingency of the Augenblick should also not endorse the standard opposition between 'democracy' and 'dictatorship' or 'terror'. The first step to make, if we are to leave behind the opposition between liberal-democratic universalism and ethnic/religious fundamentalism on which even today's mass media focus, is to acknowledge the existence of what one is tempted to call democratic fundamentalism: the ontologisation of democracy into a depoliticised universal framework which is not in itself to be (re)negotiated as the result of politic-ideological hegemonic struggles. (...)
Revolutionary politics is not a matter of 'opinions', but of the truth on behalf of which one often is compelled to disregard the 'opinion of the majority' and to impose the revolutionary will against it.
-Slavoj Zizek, 'Georg Lukacs as the Philosopher of Leninism'
I will agree tentatively to Zizek's analysis, though not to his conclusions. "Democracy" is not some inherently good or ethical process anymore than, say, Bolshevikism was. After witnessing the California recall and the victory of Ahhnuld, the cartoon king (as well as Bush's victories of course) , what half-way reasonable or ethical person can say that a popular vote is any sort of reliable method of selecting politicians. Yet the failure of popular vote does not imply that one must embrace marxism or leninism; a more positivistic type of politics could be implemented where people must be qualified to vote on issues and candidates. Require a Poll test, a college degree, a stat.s class. Indeed many humans might be willing to agree with an anti-democratic and marxist programme and embrace some form of Leninism if not for....the history of the bolsheviks, not to say Stalin etc. VI's hands are not unstained with blood.....Can anyone embrace an anti-democratic and marxist agenda if VI Lenin's hands are not unstained?
Questioning the premises of democratic politics
being against democracy is as empty as being for democracy.
the key question is what sort of democracy, what is meant by that term.
once the superficial linguistic consensus is pierced, there is no agreement on that fundamental thing.
voting is not the same thing as democracy, for many reasons (e.g. the elections may not be fair, etc.) though some form of voting is one element of a democratic system. is america a democracy? that can well be doubted; for instance, Max Weber said that behind the appearance of democracy in turn-of-the-previous-century US was plutocracy. not much has changed in this regard.
was the iraqi election a victory for democracy? quite dubious.
the key question is what sort of democracy, what is meant by that term.
once the superficial linguistic consensus is pierced, there is no agreement on that fundamental thing.
voting is not the same thing as democracy, for many reasons (e.g. the elections may not be fair, etc.) though some form of voting is one element of a democratic system. is america a democracy? that can well be doubted; for instance, Max Weber said that behind the appearance of democracy in turn-of-the-previous-century US was plutocracy. not much has changed in this regard.
was the iraqi election a victory for democracy? quite dubious.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
-
perezoso
It's not superficial, nor is it a linguistic issue. Voting is typically associated with democracy or democratic countries, is it not? I will agree voting does not entail democracy: that was my point. But rule by communist juntas ala the Bolsheviks or maoists does not ensure a just or civil or efficient society either. US democracy might appear to function quite well for the wealthy and upper classes ; impoverished humans would probably say it does not function well. A fairly obvious point-- but one to remember.
The point is that democracy itself is not inherently good: if large numbers of people are not very informed on politics or economic issues ( and you continually overlook economic issues) , then allowing them to vote on political or economic issues is a big f-n mistake. Personally I think many social problems could be solved if a few groups of ethical economists and scientists and even some philosophers were to work out some form of a planned economy: which might not entail free market capitalism. Thus, I agree with some marxist ideas, such as combatting free market and financial absurdities (like urban real estate say), though object to much of the sentimental concepts such as "working class, good; middle and upper class, bad," or the somewhat scary notion that revolution is the only way to bring about effective economic change.
The point is that democracy itself is not inherently good: if large numbers of people are not very informed on politics or economic issues ( and you continually overlook economic issues) , then allowing them to vote on political or economic issues is a big f-n mistake. Personally I think many social problems could be solved if a few groups of ethical economists and scientists and even some philosophers were to work out some form of a planned economy: which might not entail free market capitalism. Thus, I agree with some marxist ideas, such as combatting free market and financial absurdities (like urban real estate say), though object to much of the sentimental concepts such as "working class, good; middle and upper class, bad," or the somewhat scary notion that revolution is the only way to bring about effective economic change.
my point is that the linguistic label "democracy" matters a great deal to public, political discourse and struggles for power.
you refer to "US democracy" as if the common nonsense use of that phrase is okay. in my opinion there may not be any such thing as US democracy, yet. that is, democracy is an evaluation of praise, to be earned not simply assumed based on surface structures and media spin. there is no u.s. democracy -- and perhaps none on earth, yet -- b/c there has not yet been a government that is truly "of, by and for the people" which is i think the Lincoln def. of democracy, a good one/.
but why is voting better in some cases than rule by an intellectual, ethical elite? because mediocrity is better than oppression by the cunning. who chooses your group of "ethical economists" (perhaps an oxymoronic phrase)? is there a super-elite that elects the elite? or do you trust the same dumb masses you sought to keep out of the loop? or does the elite just impose itself on the masses, a self-legitimating coup of wise leadership by the philosopher kings. sounds like might makes right, after all?
personally, i don't trust aristocraies of intellect any more than aristocracies of herdity or land or swords. the vanguard party is itself, always, to be mistrusted.
you refer to "US democracy" as if the common nonsense use of that phrase is okay. in my opinion there may not be any such thing as US democracy, yet. that is, democracy is an evaluation of praise, to be earned not simply assumed based on surface structures and media spin. there is no u.s. democracy -- and perhaps none on earth, yet -- b/c there has not yet been a government that is truly "of, by and for the people" which is i think the Lincoln def. of democracy, a good one/.
but why is voting better in some cases than rule by an intellectual, ethical elite? because mediocrity is better than oppression by the cunning. who chooses your group of "ethical economists" (perhaps an oxymoronic phrase)? is there a super-elite that elects the elite? or do you trust the same dumb masses you sought to keep out of the loop? or does the elite just impose itself on the masses, a self-legitimating coup of wise leadership by the philosopher kings. sounds like might makes right, after all?
personally, i don't trust aristocraies of intellect any more than aristocracies of herdity or land or swords. the vanguard party is itself, always, to be mistrusted.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests