I am personally for radical direct democracy, nothing less, nothing more, because I view the political as trumping the economic, feel free to purge me once the revolution is there but I am interested if there are other “alternative” takes
The political flows out of the economics not the other way around, political philosophy is sustained and actualized by the political economy that underlies it, otherwise it's just worldbuilding
Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends.
Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877)
While the mode of production might be the base of a political economy, its clearly not true that there is a strictly one way relationship between politics and economics. People's lives, and society at large, are influenced all the time by government policies, and those policies are shaped by the form of government. Even if that form was produced by the economy, it in turn influences the economy that produced it.
If there is some day a giant communist revolution in your country, people are going to have to make some initial decisions about the political structure. Who controls the army/workers militia? Is there a "vanguard party"? Who is in charge of that? How centralized is the distribution of resources? How are the revolutionaries supposed to make those decisions without any political philosophy?
Yes, I agree, the two exist concurrently, they shape each other, a foundation that determines, limits, and directs the range and expression of a collective politics
it’s your opinion, to me political institutions do, or at least can, meaningfully constrain the economy and its form, it is political will that led to the construction of soc democracies and to a non inclusion of the ussr in the market economy. On your edit, there are little to no natural laws, I reject that classical consensus, same reason I am not a marxist, I do not agree with the theory from Smith and Riccardo already, you might disagree or call me a post modernist but they still do not describe well today’s world
The ruling class did not buy into social democracy because it politically made sense, it didn't, they bought in because of the material promises of Keynesian economic theory applied to macroeconomies in the post war era, it gave them a means to sustain their social position and wealth, it gave them a economic and material counter to the promises of soviet transitional state capitalism
But just like the economics of Keynesianism made social democracy it also broke it, it undermined the political institutions that you claim could constrain and form it, and this is the problem with "modernists", history and data don't meaningfully exist in your conception of social organization, so you just end up asserting idealistic narratives that are constantly contradicted by what we observe, which is neoliberalism distilled
neoliberalism is the epitome of politics over the economy since it doesn’t make sense for the continuity of either the institutions or the economy, in Europe for exemple, but the whole political class now was in school in the 90s and so internalized austerity and personal responsibility into its worldview, I do look at data and history, just beyond a sole economic or materialist view
Incorrect, neoliberalism as a historical phenomenon is the triumph of capital mobility over the constraining national politics of the westphalian nation-states, it is capital economism bursting out like a Xenomorph to devour all political and social barriers to the accumulation of capital, neoliberalism was born in the midst of the capital strikes of the 70's and only fully realized politically half a decade later in the electoral victories of Thatcher and Reagan
Again your political institutions stood no chance when the political economy underlying it revolted against the social and political assumptions of said institutions
that’s your opinion, its reproduction is clearly through institutional biases and an avowed powerlessness of the state, yes it coincides with capital, through ideology as much as material conditions in the past, and now almost solely as ideology, neoliberalism in Germany, France or Spain is not a necessity for capital since government contracts are their own incentive to keep a strong state and taxation, it is will by ideologues to have reality conform to their neat ideas about the world, same with the ecb who doesn’t want inflation, it is not because of any material circumstance, it is just a bias towards the monetary doctrine borne out of, again, their education, and so the political, since it is not the sole capitalist doctrine
This is almost incomprehensible compared to the political economy over the political thesis.
in all honesty i do believe that every single part of the human system matters, but that for political purposes the political takes precedence or at least can, I am definitely not just a materialist though since i consider ideas and most importantly institutions, if equal weight, it is messy because it is fragmented and would take a full novel or more to outline everything
If ideas are so central to the rise of neoliberalism, why was it implemented more or less simultaneously in multiple ideologically independent regions of the world?
what do you mean ideologically independent? if you believe in the class analysis no ideology of the top is independent and if you look at history US-EU ties plus american advisers in south america and the former ussr territory, plus the hegemony of the us in media, plus the predominance of neolibs in the scientific publications of the time, which later seeped into the higher education are clear explanations
Its reproduction is sustained by a global investor class that realize its goals thru the institutions of those countries, this is what I mean when I claim modernists have no conception of history or in this case class, instead of recognizing the material incentives of a CLASS of people who wish to preserve their social position against the historical pressures of socialist movements, you instead mystify the education of government technocrats, mistaking selection pressures in political organization for determining the causation of neoliberalism
Ideology is not sustained in a vacuum of ideas, and the only "necessity" capital is motivated by is unrestrained accumulation of more capital, an internal logic that contradicts the idealistic narrative of class collaboration you've been alluding to
believe what you want, not everything is around class, and certainly goal realization, since the ideology goes against the local bourgeois, and if you give some if the what about the larger class, that’s the point, it might have been, on neoliberalism, at some point, driven by class antagonism but it is now just pure ideology who seeped internationally, regardless of material conditions, we are not going into a service and idea economy for nothing, the immaterial (not in the internet sense) infrastructure affects us as much, and I would argue more, than the material conditions
The material resources of the local bourgeois can not match that of the national and global investor class which is why the dominant ideology reflects the interests of the largest capitalist blocs, which again follows from the internal logic of capitalism, the largest accumulators determine the shape and expression of the dominant political philosophy and to claim neoliberal ideology is no longer concerned with class antagonism is genuinely one the most bizarre statements I've read in a while, neoliberal ideology is class antagonism made manifest, it's an utter rejection of social democratic class collaboration and an expression of the will of the capitalists to dominate the global working class, I'm starting to suspect you don't really have a coherent grasp on the terms you're using: Just what do words like class, ideology, and capitalism actually mean to you?
we are not going into a service and idea economy for nothing, the immaterial (not in the internet sense) infrastructure affects us as much, and I would argue more, than the material conditions
We're not going into an "idea" economy we're heading into a DATA economy where capitalist blocs compete for collective organizational data to undermine both competitors and national labor rights, it's the evolution of neoliberalism into its digitalist stage, its highest form
you’re missing the point and reiterating the same point which again, in practice, doesn’t pan out, neoliberalism is not effective for capitalism ie continued accumulation of surplus, but the leaders’ ideology, ie their belief there is no other reasonable way, means that they continue policies who do not benefit anyone, even more for the ecb monetarism, as proven with covid and earlier qe, capitalists prefer stimulus, it just isn’t in the central bankers’ realm of possibility
neoliberalism is not effective for capitalism ie continued accumulation of surplus
Legit, what world are you living in?
capitalists prefer stimulus
Capitalists do not "prefer" stimulus, they see it as a market disruption that obfuscates private sector price signals, in many ways they're right, you need to read some Michał Kalecki
i do not and no they don’t, they don’t fing care about price signals, not even about selling anything in the first place, like stock buybacks, there are plenty of examples that they are caring about narrower and narrower metrics further away from reality, for which stimulus do wonder or government contracts for that matter, I AM NOT talking from an american perspective, but for the eurozone for example my points are valid, i already said that neoliberalism was initiated (in the us) by materialist conditions, every metric is shit, there is stagnation and that’s neoliberalism they are injecting everywhere
not absolutely nor solely, I think other things come with it as well, being the reason why countries shift while others don’t under similar economic circumstances (Us vs europe now, europe vs france in the 80s, asian continued integration of SOEs, long sold by the europeans...)
being formerly revolutionary or an ally to the empire, or an hegemon, or a banana republic, is deeply political, and dictated in large part by international relation (france seat in the un security council, colonies being integrated into circles of influences, independance of saudi arabia and not other oil producing countries...)
I do not live in the US which I guess where all the takes on it being not materially grounded comes from, as stated before here it is both part of social movements and as a bargaining chip to state abdication, you’re maybe not condescending but very much US centric
- education and mandatory weekly session on the company dime
- you play them until they face an overwhelming tide, if they fuck around, you take it
- points above, plus will be drowned by the masses, if the system is no longer supported by the majority so be it
- there is no further protection than education, ethically i cannot force the majority but it wouldn’t happen in practice it might seem a bit alien but it is adapted to my country which is not the US where the constitution would allow it and it is gaining traction both institutionally and on the streets, it would require further adaptations in the US and would probably best started in a single state
the difficulty I guess is that I separate my personal beliefs for what would be an optimal system and my ethical belief laid out here that direct democracy should be the system going forward, the education system would probably best be agreed via both full transparency so it can be contested by referendum and via agreement with the teacher sector/unions. I didn’t mention it but media institutions would be heavily regulated with, ideally, full state or ngo ownership, and I think that having a direct mandatory impact to your own life would lead to more involvement not less. This is tailored as I see could work in my country and is also dependent on what people vote and do not, I do believe that Communards were almost radical enough in terms of political system, I do have, however, but not the point here, similarly radical views on the economy.
I do need to check more soviet theory, any advice on relevant work? I guess one crucial difference with a radlib project, even in isolation, is that the aim is to create a collective whereby the collective improves the state which improves the collective, and have consensus building, which are probably necessary anyways at least in the later stages of a radical direct democracy like I am describing
I prefer to label myself as a Marxist. If there was a more concrete movement in my country that aligned with my views I would go for that but until then I think fringe left political labels only alienate people who have ingrained knee jerk reactions to words like “anarchist” and “communist.” Labels are dumb anyway but until I find an actual revolutionary group to join what is even the point of calling myself anything else?
I hate that the term communist was so thoroughly propagandized. It's actually less sectarian than even Marxist as being communist only implies your end goals and stays nothing about how you plan to get there.
The thing for me is that Marxism is a worldview or analytical method for understanding what the hell is going on. The way I see it, it's intertwined with, but not necessarily congruent with your political views. It's conceivable to be a Marxist who understands class conflict, historical materialism, contradictions inherent to the capitalist mode of production etc etc... and still be a capitalist in political/economic ideology (arguably a more effective one), though you'd still be a bastard of course.
Obviously Marxist Leninism, Maoism (and so on) are applications of Marxism (and its derivatives) to the political sphere, with the goal of overthrowing oppressor classes and liberating all people. Each of these were suited to the conditions of the geographic/economic/political landscapes of their respective times and places, and while we have a ton to learn from them, I don't think it's necessary to latch on to any of these particular labels. What we should be working toward is socialism with American/European/Chilean characteristics (whichever applies). These socialisms may be revisionist from the start (cough cough American) or they might be fairly badass (Venezuela/Chile/Bolivia/Peru pink wave), but they'll be suited for whatever is going on over there. As Marxists, we need to be alert for opportunities to use whatever resources are available to improve life for the working class. In 2016 USA that might be critical support for soc-dem grandpa, but in the future I certainly hope that we can do more to improve the lives of workers of the global South outside of what Bernie Sanders can offer (which is simply a better redistribution of the ill-gotten gains of the American Empire).
such condescension, you just have to tolerate I exist and think differently, I have not read that much marxist literatures but plenty of studies for sure
except studies are more rigorous, more precise pieces of work but who care about that, uh, I’ll remain polite but there is a fine line between agreeing with marx’s analysis and becoming a proselyte of a new cult, and you’re crossing it
My question for you would be where does the political power to enact a radical direct democracy come from? Who would be doing this? Do you envision this as something that can be accomplished via reform and electoral politics? Or would it be a revolutionary struggle?
In our current situation the capitalist class controls all the levers of power. They are not going to give this power up voluntarily. We are either going to live in a world where a very small amount of people control the economy/politics/society (as they do now) or we are going to remake the world into something approaching a classless society. I don't see another path to any kind of foundational change.
I think that to do it for one state would be a start, on the libs still believe in democracy hypothesis, pretend to play the game where more political participation could help placate austerity and state abdication (already trialed in my country), create a movement (rather merge different movements together) and make it a “vicious circle” where there is a push that people vote to give themselves more power (again works in my country constitution so very fact specific), if once a mass movement is formed the hypothesis doesn’t work, given the fundamentally rallying appeal of more tights for everyone, we can go into more direct and extreme action, which again I will not outline online
Idk what I am, but maybe back in 1917 the world’s leaders saw their extinction slowly unfolding and have been doing everything to kick that can down the road.
Yes, but I also recognize that things will probably not go down in precisely the way I would prefer, and it's better to be a part of a group that's large enough to effect change even if it doesn't represent my exact views, than to be in a splinter group that has no power but can win every high school debate club tournament.
in my country there are several movements on direct democracy, while marxist parties are dying or becoming libs
Where's my liquid democracy gang?
"individual A of a society can delegate their (voting) power to another individual B – and withdraw such power again at any time." or can vote directly
I consider myself an ML, but in the organization of a socialist state post-revolution I would be all in on radical direct democracy. I'm imagining a system vaguely similar to the ones we have now, but where the legislative branch is defined as "all citizens". I imagine people would want to delegate a ton of power to representatives (and for that I'm thinking a system similar to China) to avoid visiting the voting booth on a daily basis, but the point is that legally every single political decision should flow from referendum, so that at any time if the actions of the government and the will of the people are desynchronized the process to correct it is obvious and can't be usurped.
The real tricky thing is balancing the power of local democracies with the national one, and I honestly don't think that any coherent system can be created to this end. If the national vote is supreme to local votes, then the majority could pass racist or outright fascist BS and there's not much for the minority to do about it. If on the other hand you stipulate that the local trumps the national, then how do you prevent reactionary forces from setting up enclaves within your society and making everything worse for everyone else. To this end I think that a vanguard party, rigorous socialist education, and a cultural revolution are all necessary - if you just enshrine minority rights into a constitution or whatever then then the reactionary forces will use your process against you, they must be actively suppressed until society outgrows the need for reaction.
What's the difference between "radical direct democracy" and anarchism?
Not sure if this is "unorthodox" but I favor a transitional "state" that's a mixture of cohesion and autonomy, focused on most planning happening at the municipal level, but with higher level planning for things that warrant it. So, layers of decision making, likely at the workplace, local, national, and maybe international level, with the addition of special planning councils to represent specific marginalized groups. I think strict centralization is inefficient in terms of serving the needs of local populations, and doesn't allow for the creation and development of genuinely socialist (directly democratic) economic and social structures.
At the same time, a total lack of centralization would be crippling for managing large scale problems, such as collective security, management of key industries and resources, and climate change. You really would need the right combination of both, in a way that allows planning to happen at the layer or layers where a specific problem is best handled. I also think market socialism for consumer goods would be useful initially for building these planning layers (represented as ownership layers under market socialism) to ensure a relatively smooth transition that causes the least amount on unnecessary chaos/harm.
I also think that, given the threat posed by climate change, mitigating GHG emissions and tackling problems associated with climate change should take top priority, and any strategy or transition plan needs to incorporate those issues.
