The politics of Robinson Crusoe, the original rugged individualism, can only get you so far provided you are kept relatively isolated from other people. But when we have pervasive proximity to others in everyday life, rapid transportation to reach diverse areas, and 24/7 media linkages across the world, isolation is not an option.
We have to live with others. The only question is how. The most optimistic amongst us like to dream that if there were no government around, everyone would cooperate in perfect harmony. Their naivety is sadly exposed by the regrettable, but quite undeniable, existence of exploiters who would never miss a chance to take unfair advantage of others. Using force, stealth, or deception, they would feed off the labour of others while accumulating ever more land, wealth and power for themselves.
Nine years before Crusoe’s creator, Daniel Defoe, was born, the dangers of leaving people to do as they pleased without any kind of law and enforcement were vividly dissected by Thomas Hobbes in his 1651 book, Leviathan. It would not matter if there were saintly people who would always put the interests of others first, or the majority of people would prefer to live in peace with others, so long as some were inclined to cheat, manipulate or dominate others, everyone would have to submit to endless mistreatment or fight back by whatever means available.
On Hobbes’ analysis, even well-meaning people could through misunderstanding end up mired in violent conflicts (he lived through the English Civil War). But while most of us would grant his conclusion that a government is therefore indispensable to make and enforce laws for the peace and wellbeing of all, few could go along with his prescription for giving the power of government to an absolute ruler.
If not an absolute ruler who can make decisions without challenge from anyone, Hobbes would ask, then who is to be entrusted with such power? The answer is: politics. Not politics in the distorted sense of ‘petty party political point-scoring’, or as a short-hand term for the unsavoury business of some professional politicians. To equate politics with such activities would be like treating medicine as what is practised by quacks and charlatans.
Politics is the art of organising society so that the people can govern themselves through a set of rulers who will look after their common interests by the laws and policies they institute. The progress of politics through the ages has consisted in it evolving more effective means to select and remove those with ruling powers peacefully. A key aspect of this has been to give the public the understanding and authority needed to judge and choose who they can count on most to guard against private encroachment and secure the public good.
Unfortunately it is this aspect of politics that has been most neglected for decades. As we saw in ‘The Voter Vanishes’, for example, in the UK nearly half those eligible to vote either don’t register to vote or don’t turn out to vote. For those who do vote, the majority are routinely disappointed that the parties they back don’t get to govern.
The physical wellbeing of people can only be advanced through a combination of medical training of the experts and health education for everyone. Similarly, the collective wellbeing of our society can only be improved with the help of leadership training for those in government positions, and political education for all citizens.
In partnership with the WEA (Workers’ Educational Association), the Question the Powerful project has developed a series of day schools under the title, ‘Politics: what is it good for?’, to engage people in taking a fresh look at political ideas and practices, and learning about why they should exercise their democratic power as voters. Each day school will explore:
• Political history: how did we get here?
• Political approaches: what options have we got?
• Political action and impact: why we can make a difference?
• Political imagination: which future awaits us?
If you would like to participate in one of these day schools or explore developing similar learning opportunities, you can find out more about the initiative here:
http://eastern.wea.org.uk/wea-news/news/2015/01/07/politics-what-is-it-good-for/
--
On leadership training for those in government positions, see article: ‘The Everest of Senior Public Service Management’
Thursday, 15 January 2015
Thursday, 1 January 2015
The Voter Vanishes
Democracy’s proudest achievement was to create the opportunity for everyone to play a part in determining who should rule, without resorting to violence. It is an achievement that many people across the world are still striving to emulate.
Yet ironically, in countries where democracy has in principle been established for centuries, the people who are already eligible to vote in elections have shown much less enthusiasm about the power to secure regime change peacefully.
Take a look, for example, at the British Parliament, which long ago inspired the development of democratically elected executives and legislatures around the globe.
In the four parliamentary elections held in the 1950s, turnouts averaged 80%. In the last three elections (2001, 2005, 2010) the average was 62%.
Some might say that despite the drop, 62% is still not too bad a figure in terms of providing some semblance of democratic legitimacy. But let us unpack the numbers to see what is really going on. Although 62% - of the people registered to vote - actually turned out to vote, many people who were eligible to vote had not even put themselves on the electoral register.
Most estimates put the proportion of people eligible to vote in the UK but not registered to vote at 15%. Taking this into account, it means that in the last three elections, only 52% of the people eligible to vote actually cast a vote, leaving 48% of eligible voters not voting (comprising 15% not registered, and 33% registered but not voting).
And furthermore, although on average the party that has gone on to form the government (or take the lead role in running a coalition government) in the last three elections won 39% of the votes cast, as a proportion of all the people who are eligible to vote that represents merely 20%.
So the UK, with its purported respect for democracy, is routinely governed these days by a political party with the electoral backing of merely 20% of all those eligible to vote. Of the remaining 80%: 15% of them omitted (deliberately or otherwise) to register to vote; 33% registered to vote but decided not to use that vote; and 32% voted for other parties they would prefer to see govern the country.
On the basis of there being around 40 million people in the UK who are eligible to vote, that translates to 8 million people backing the government of the day, and 4 times that number – 32 million people – opting not to give that government their support.
In case anyone thinks this is not a fair way to present the balance of votes cast, we should remember that in 2012 Conservative-led Government in Britain strongly criticised the National Union of Teachers when it went ahead with strike action after just 23% of its members voted in support of the strike. With many of the union members not voting, Conservative politicians attacked it for acting on the basis of a “paltry mandate”.
That is what many governments in modern ‘democracies’ are relying on for their right to govern – a paltry mandate.
If people want to put an end to the policies such governments push through, they should aim to rally enough support from the 80% of eligible voters who don’t back those currently in charge, and elect a different government. Even just getting a third of them on side would suffice, and that would already be a stronger mandate. Of course building a political platform and persuading people to back it would be more difficult than just yelling with no coherent policy alternatives to install. But ultimately, the problem with letting votes disappear into the ether is that it just allows those intent on serving the wealthy elite to retain power.
Yet ironically, in countries where democracy has in principle been established for centuries, the people who are already eligible to vote in elections have shown much less enthusiasm about the power to secure regime change peacefully.
Take a look, for example, at the British Parliament, which long ago inspired the development of democratically elected executives and legislatures around the globe.
In the four parliamentary elections held in the 1950s, turnouts averaged 80%. In the last three elections (2001, 2005, 2010) the average was 62%.
Some might say that despite the drop, 62% is still not too bad a figure in terms of providing some semblance of democratic legitimacy. But let us unpack the numbers to see what is really going on. Although 62% - of the people registered to vote - actually turned out to vote, many people who were eligible to vote had not even put themselves on the electoral register.
Most estimates put the proportion of people eligible to vote in the UK but not registered to vote at 15%. Taking this into account, it means that in the last three elections, only 52% of the people eligible to vote actually cast a vote, leaving 48% of eligible voters not voting (comprising 15% not registered, and 33% registered but not voting).
And furthermore, although on average the party that has gone on to form the government (or take the lead role in running a coalition government) in the last three elections won 39% of the votes cast, as a proportion of all the people who are eligible to vote that represents merely 20%.
So the UK, with its purported respect for democracy, is routinely governed these days by a political party with the electoral backing of merely 20% of all those eligible to vote. Of the remaining 80%: 15% of them omitted (deliberately or otherwise) to register to vote; 33% registered to vote but decided not to use that vote; and 32% voted for other parties they would prefer to see govern the country.
On the basis of there being around 40 million people in the UK who are eligible to vote, that translates to 8 million people backing the government of the day, and 4 times that number – 32 million people – opting not to give that government their support.
In case anyone thinks this is not a fair way to present the balance of votes cast, we should remember that in 2012 Conservative-led Government in Britain strongly criticised the National Union of Teachers when it went ahead with strike action after just 23% of its members voted in support of the strike. With many of the union members not voting, Conservative politicians attacked it for acting on the basis of a “paltry mandate”.
That is what many governments in modern ‘democracies’ are relying on for their right to govern – a paltry mandate.
If people want to put an end to the policies such governments push through, they should aim to rally enough support from the 80% of eligible voters who don’t back those currently in charge, and elect a different government. Even just getting a third of them on side would suffice, and that would already be a stronger mandate. Of course building a political platform and persuading people to back it would be more difficult than just yelling with no coherent policy alternatives to install. But ultimately, the problem with letting votes disappear into the ether is that it just allows those intent on serving the wealthy elite to retain power.
Monday, 15 December 2014
Between the Buddha & Camus
What truly divides us in politics is not some grand doctrine or unshakable party allegiance, but our core moral dispositions. Some see others in distress and pain, and instinctively assume such people have only got themselves to blame. And whatever evidence is produced to suggest the contrary, they will keep condemning them for countless deficiencies.
We recoil from such prejudice. When we witness suffering, we want to understand the underlying causes and find ways to overcome them. Unlike our detractors, we hesitate to proclaim ourselves ‘right’ about everything, for we merely seek to be as reasonable as we can under even the most trying circumstances.
But without the simplistic recourse of dismissing human misfortune as rooted in the flaws of scapegoats, we have to struggle to make sense of life’s seemingly endless stream of torment and affliction. Yet what can we do? However much we try to seek out amelioration and progress, the trials are interminable.
Two counsels have in the past proffered advice on this very problem. One is Gotama the Buddha, who observed that suffering was inescapable unless we were ready to attain nirvana through the extinguishing of desires and emotional turmoil. The other is Camus, who pointed out that life was inherently absurd without any meaning except for our defiance against injustice and oppression.
Gotama showed us the path to accepting the experiences that come our way and letting everything go without becoming perturbed. Camus reminded us that the only alternative to a meaningless existence is to engage in rebelling against the suffering confronting us.
What then are we to do? Keep fighting ignorance and exploitation knowing that, as in the myth of Sisyphus, our labours will never end with a final triumph? Or step back from the arena of conflicts even though that robs us of the moral purpose that underpins our existence?
Perhaps we should look beyond their apparent incompatibility and see them as two stages of a single journey. The coming of consciousness challenges us to respond to the causes and consequences of subjugation and suffering. At this point, there can be no surrender to the dominion of the powerful and the cruel. But when the time comes for us to exit, we should be ready to leave it to others to continue the campaign. Once we have completed our tour of duty, we should move on and embrace our own extinguishing.
If we retreat into nirvana when we are in the frontline battling the causes of avoidable suffering in this world, we betray ourselves. If we lament the contrived futility of not being around to fight on till the end of time, we deceive ourselves.
Between the Buddha and Camus, we have a pathway that leads us from the existential commitment to challenge the devious and the unjust, to the time when it is for us to embrace our own disengagement from the tumultuous combat. We rebels may take comfort in knowing that when our mission is done, nirvana awaits.
We recoil from such prejudice. When we witness suffering, we want to understand the underlying causes and find ways to overcome them. Unlike our detractors, we hesitate to proclaim ourselves ‘right’ about everything, for we merely seek to be as reasonable as we can under even the most trying circumstances.
But without the simplistic recourse of dismissing human misfortune as rooted in the flaws of scapegoats, we have to struggle to make sense of life’s seemingly endless stream of torment and affliction. Yet what can we do? However much we try to seek out amelioration and progress, the trials are interminable.
Two counsels have in the past proffered advice on this very problem. One is Gotama the Buddha, who observed that suffering was inescapable unless we were ready to attain nirvana through the extinguishing of desires and emotional turmoil. The other is Camus, who pointed out that life was inherently absurd without any meaning except for our defiance against injustice and oppression.
Gotama showed us the path to accepting the experiences that come our way and letting everything go without becoming perturbed. Camus reminded us that the only alternative to a meaningless existence is to engage in rebelling against the suffering confronting us.
What then are we to do? Keep fighting ignorance and exploitation knowing that, as in the myth of Sisyphus, our labours will never end with a final triumph? Or step back from the arena of conflicts even though that robs us of the moral purpose that underpins our existence?
Perhaps we should look beyond their apparent incompatibility and see them as two stages of a single journey. The coming of consciousness challenges us to respond to the causes and consequences of subjugation and suffering. At this point, there can be no surrender to the dominion of the powerful and the cruel. But when the time comes for us to exit, we should be ready to leave it to others to continue the campaign. Once we have completed our tour of duty, we should move on and embrace our own extinguishing.
If we retreat into nirvana when we are in the frontline battling the causes of avoidable suffering in this world, we betray ourselves. If we lament the contrived futility of not being around to fight on till the end of time, we deceive ourselves.
Between the Buddha and Camus, we have a pathway that leads us from the existential commitment to challenge the devious and the unjust, to the time when it is for us to embrace our own disengagement from the tumultuous combat. We rebels may take comfort in knowing that when our mission is done, nirvana awaits.
Monday, 1 December 2014
The Con Identity
In everyday life, if we overhear some con merchant trying to sell a pack of lies to the family next door, we would warn our neighbours and perhaps even threaten to report the con-man to the authority.
In politics, the tricksters may not be so easy to spot; some victims grow so attached to the false hope being peddled that they resent anyone trying to talk them out of it; and worst of all, if the con goes down without a hitch, the perpetrator becomes the authority.
But precisely because the stakes are so high, we must do everything we can to expose the con identity of politicians who pretend they want to look after our interests when all they are after is more wealth and power for them and their accomplices.
So how do we spot the political Con? Here are four unmistakable signs:
[1] The Pyramid Trick
Whatever the spiel, the deck is stacked to ensure that it is always going to be more pay, tax cuts, bonuses and dividends for the privileged few at the top of the towering wealth pyramid, while everyone else has to work harder everyday just to stay above rock bottom. Look out for the promise of a fast track ‘social mobility’ draw where if you are one of the very lucky, and decidedly very few, you may get to climb a couple of rungs nearer to the upper echelons. You will be routinely told that all the accumulated wealth will trickle down to you in time, when all you actually get is a relentlessly growing burden weighing you down.
[2] The Smoke & Halo Trick
Any notion that may have a positive connotation will be dazzlingly shuffled before you – ‘God’, ‘Country’, ‘The Flag/The Queen’ (depending if you’re in the US or the UK), ‘The Family’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Traditions’ – stirring up Pavlovian expectations of something deserving of your unquestioning reverence. And while your attention is distracted by the fancy shuffling, your pay packet shrinks, your children can’t afford the inflated house prices in your neighbourhood, the costs of necessities from energy to medicine skyrocket, and you are left with mass insecurity.
[3] The Isolation Trick
Every move is designed to isolate you. Any collective strength you may have from being part of something larger will be drained from you. Voluntary groups daring to campaign are starved of funds. Unions are bashed. And public sector provisions for ordinary people are cut back in every direction (though subsidies for corporations continue to grow). You are told that you’re better off keeping your money in your pocket even when it could buy you much more through a public scheme. The more things are privatised and deregulated, the more you are left on your own – easy pickings for tricksters with all the aces up their sleeves.
[4] The Scapegoats Trick
A simple sleight of hand and you see nothing of the manipulation that sucks out the gains from your increased productivity one day and leaves you redundant with a cut-up safety net the next. Instead your eyes are drawn to the supposed ‘cheats’ sitting next to you – the refugees, the immigrants, the low pay and jobless needing help to feed their children. You are goaded into resenting them, despising them, and channelling all your frustration towards them, while the double-dealer pockets everything in sight.
We hear much about the need to educate the public about the importance of democracy and the value of voting. One preliminary lesson for all citizens must surely be on how to spot these devious tricks and shun the politicians with the reprehensible ‘Con’ identity.
--
[If you’re interested in reading a story of how Con politicians trick their way to taking complete control over the lives of everyone in Britain and America, try the satirical dystopian novel, Whitehall through the Looking Glass]
In politics, the tricksters may not be so easy to spot; some victims grow so attached to the false hope being peddled that they resent anyone trying to talk them out of it; and worst of all, if the con goes down without a hitch, the perpetrator becomes the authority.
But precisely because the stakes are so high, we must do everything we can to expose the con identity of politicians who pretend they want to look after our interests when all they are after is more wealth and power for them and their accomplices.
So how do we spot the political Con? Here are four unmistakable signs:
[1] The Pyramid Trick
Whatever the spiel, the deck is stacked to ensure that it is always going to be more pay, tax cuts, bonuses and dividends for the privileged few at the top of the towering wealth pyramid, while everyone else has to work harder everyday just to stay above rock bottom. Look out for the promise of a fast track ‘social mobility’ draw where if you are one of the very lucky, and decidedly very few, you may get to climb a couple of rungs nearer to the upper echelons. You will be routinely told that all the accumulated wealth will trickle down to you in time, when all you actually get is a relentlessly growing burden weighing you down.
[2] The Smoke & Halo Trick
Any notion that may have a positive connotation will be dazzlingly shuffled before you – ‘God’, ‘Country’, ‘The Flag/The Queen’ (depending if you’re in the US or the UK), ‘The Family’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Traditions’ – stirring up Pavlovian expectations of something deserving of your unquestioning reverence. And while your attention is distracted by the fancy shuffling, your pay packet shrinks, your children can’t afford the inflated house prices in your neighbourhood, the costs of necessities from energy to medicine skyrocket, and you are left with mass insecurity.
[3] The Isolation Trick
Every move is designed to isolate you. Any collective strength you may have from being part of something larger will be drained from you. Voluntary groups daring to campaign are starved of funds. Unions are bashed. And public sector provisions for ordinary people are cut back in every direction (though subsidies for corporations continue to grow). You are told that you’re better off keeping your money in your pocket even when it could buy you much more through a public scheme. The more things are privatised and deregulated, the more you are left on your own – easy pickings for tricksters with all the aces up their sleeves.
[4] The Scapegoats Trick
A simple sleight of hand and you see nothing of the manipulation that sucks out the gains from your increased productivity one day and leaves you redundant with a cut-up safety net the next. Instead your eyes are drawn to the supposed ‘cheats’ sitting next to you – the refugees, the immigrants, the low pay and jobless needing help to feed their children. You are goaded into resenting them, despising them, and channelling all your frustration towards them, while the double-dealer pockets everything in sight.
We hear much about the need to educate the public about the importance of democracy and the value of voting. One preliminary lesson for all citizens must surely be on how to spot these devious tricks and shun the politicians with the reprehensible ‘Con’ identity.
--
[If you’re interested in reading a story of how Con politicians trick their way to taking complete control over the lives of everyone in Britain and America, try the satirical dystopian novel, Whitehall through the Looking Glass]
Saturday, 15 November 2014
The Meekest Link
On the one hand, we have mounting evidence that cooperative working, shared ownership, and economic democracy contribute to better individual health, more reliable economic performance, greater sustainability, and improved social relations (see note 1 in ‘Six Degrees of Cooperation’).
On the other hand, it is still only a minority of potential employers and service providers who take cooperation and workplace democracy seriously; and most people simply do not have the opportunity to work with others on an equal and inclusive basis.
So how are we to bridge this gap between what is good for us and what is open to us?
The response we most often hear is that we need to disseminate information more widely. If only more people knew about the superior quality of life they can attain through democratic cooperation, it is supposed, they would embrace it. Perhaps the dissemination just needs to be done in a more accessible way or with greater panache, but essentially the idea is that once people get the message that it is a better deal, they would go for it.
Experience, alas, suggests otherwise. Many people learn about the cooperative model and its advantages, and yet relatively few of them go on to convert that understanding into new ways of working. And the explanation lies in the fact that it is not easy to set up cooperative structures, organise their activities on a socio-economically sustainable basis, and engage people so that the democratic input of all does not get overtaken by the dominance from an active few.
Instead of trying to build from scratch a truly cooperative enterprise or campaign group, most pick the easier option of joining established organisations, and unfortunately the great majority of these do not give those who work for them or support them an equal say in how they are run.
The onus thus falls on those who are willing and able to lead the development of thoroughly democratic cooperative bodies. We need them to step forward and put in place the organisational edifice that will enable others to join in. But all too often, amongst those who champion equal participation, there is a palpable reluctance to stand up as leaders.
Perhaps it is connected with an over heightened sense of humility – not wanting to be the ones who act as the fulcrum of the operation, the driving force of change. Yet this meekness is quite misplaced. While it is essential for cooperative leaders not to lose sight of the democratic equality that connects them with others in the enterprise, it is also vital that they have the confidence and determination to lead the way in rallying and organising.
If there is one thing the cooperative and commons movements should do above all else, it would be to encourage those with organisational competence and leadership ability to build and promote social, economic, environmental, and political institutions that will give people a real chance to join in to work with others democratically and inclusively in pursuit of shared goals.
Instead of waiting meekly for others to bring new forms of business and public policy bodies into being, they should unreservedly offer themselves as the key link between cooperative aspiration and its conversion into a vibrant reality.
On the other hand, it is still only a minority of potential employers and service providers who take cooperation and workplace democracy seriously; and most people simply do not have the opportunity to work with others on an equal and inclusive basis.
So how are we to bridge this gap between what is good for us and what is open to us?
The response we most often hear is that we need to disseminate information more widely. If only more people knew about the superior quality of life they can attain through democratic cooperation, it is supposed, they would embrace it. Perhaps the dissemination just needs to be done in a more accessible way or with greater panache, but essentially the idea is that once people get the message that it is a better deal, they would go for it.
Experience, alas, suggests otherwise. Many people learn about the cooperative model and its advantages, and yet relatively few of them go on to convert that understanding into new ways of working. And the explanation lies in the fact that it is not easy to set up cooperative structures, organise their activities on a socio-economically sustainable basis, and engage people so that the democratic input of all does not get overtaken by the dominance from an active few.
Instead of trying to build from scratch a truly cooperative enterprise or campaign group, most pick the easier option of joining established organisations, and unfortunately the great majority of these do not give those who work for them or support them an equal say in how they are run.
The onus thus falls on those who are willing and able to lead the development of thoroughly democratic cooperative bodies. We need them to step forward and put in place the organisational edifice that will enable others to join in. But all too often, amongst those who champion equal participation, there is a palpable reluctance to stand up as leaders.
Perhaps it is connected with an over heightened sense of humility – not wanting to be the ones who act as the fulcrum of the operation, the driving force of change. Yet this meekness is quite misplaced. While it is essential for cooperative leaders not to lose sight of the democratic equality that connects them with others in the enterprise, it is also vital that they have the confidence and determination to lead the way in rallying and organising.
If there is one thing the cooperative and commons movements should do above all else, it would be to encourage those with organisational competence and leadership ability to build and promote social, economic, environmental, and political institutions that will give people a real chance to join in to work with others democratically and inclusively in pursuit of shared goals.
Instead of waiting meekly for others to bring new forms of business and public policy bodies into being, they should unreservedly offer themselves as the key link between cooperative aspiration and its conversion into a vibrant reality.
Saturday, 1 November 2014
Revolution for Beginners
Revolution thrills the downtrodden with its promise of radical changes. When prevailing conditions are so oppressive and seemingly unalterable, people are desperate for something altogether different.
But like any explosive device, poorly handled revolutions can cause more problems than they solve.
So let us run through a few revolutionary options to give those entranced by the prospect of a brand new world a clearer understanding of how things really work when the bang goes off.
First up, the vanguard revolution that will violently overthrow existing institutions and impose a new regime to sweep aside all oppression and inequality. Always attractive to trigger-happy volatile type as well as to dreamers with a dictator-complex. Tends to be fairly indifferent to innocent people being sacrificed along the way, and intolerant of dissidents, for whom an unpleasant end is usually reserved.
Next in line, we have the anarchic revolution that displaces oppressive ruling power, not by another form of power, but by the complete absence of rule. Every structure for collective decision-making, every system for common endeavours, is disrupted or even dismantled. In the ensuing chaos of everyone-for-oneself, free-riders and exploiters take advantage of radical lawlessness and they alone gain.
Thirdly, brown shirts, black shirts, and Armani shirts all share a fondness for the dressed-up revolution. Always put on the appearance of the purest dedication to serve the nation, ruthlessly target those victimised as scapegoats (mostly minorities), and dramatically alter government policies and structures – but only to serve the commercial, military, and ideological cravings of the string-pulling elite.
Fourth in line, but ever popular, is the quiet revolution. Instead of direct confrontation, this route leads its followers to lots of small-scale alternative enterprises. These show how business can operate in a radically different way. Though they are confined to pockets here and there, they are celebrated as heralds of a new future – which will arrive, some day, somehow.
If the options so far don’t look as though they would deliver the improvements needed any time soon, then at least there is still the ultimate political weapon – the democratic revolution. If those in power deny you a vote in deciding who should be in control of national policies, then the vote is what you press for. If you have the vote, then use it get those you trust to represent your interests elected. If there is no prospect of a party with policies that best enhance the common good getting elected, then work with others to build a party or an alliance that merits your vote.
Plutocrats have for decades encroached on the common good and rewritten the rules at every level to boost their own aggrandisement. It will take a revolution to end their iniquitous reign. But as we have seen, people who talk a good talk about revolutions may be the last people to turn to if we really want to change the world for the better.
Forget about installing another dictatorship, see endless disruption for the nihilistic trip it is, avoid the con-merchants who will invoke God and the Flag to exploit you even more, and put aside idle dreams that a good society can blossom when government stays in the hands of oppressors. Only a large-scale democratic revolution will secure the necessary changes. So start building a wide progressive alliance, engage with citizens in all walks of life, and rally support for policy changes that no party wanting to hold public office can afford to reject.
But like any explosive device, poorly handled revolutions can cause more problems than they solve.
So let us run through a few revolutionary options to give those entranced by the prospect of a brand new world a clearer understanding of how things really work when the bang goes off.
First up, the vanguard revolution that will violently overthrow existing institutions and impose a new regime to sweep aside all oppression and inequality. Always attractive to trigger-happy volatile type as well as to dreamers with a dictator-complex. Tends to be fairly indifferent to innocent people being sacrificed along the way, and intolerant of dissidents, for whom an unpleasant end is usually reserved.
Next in line, we have the anarchic revolution that displaces oppressive ruling power, not by another form of power, but by the complete absence of rule. Every structure for collective decision-making, every system for common endeavours, is disrupted or even dismantled. In the ensuing chaos of everyone-for-oneself, free-riders and exploiters take advantage of radical lawlessness and they alone gain.
Thirdly, brown shirts, black shirts, and Armani shirts all share a fondness for the dressed-up revolution. Always put on the appearance of the purest dedication to serve the nation, ruthlessly target those victimised as scapegoats (mostly minorities), and dramatically alter government policies and structures – but only to serve the commercial, military, and ideological cravings of the string-pulling elite.
Fourth in line, but ever popular, is the quiet revolution. Instead of direct confrontation, this route leads its followers to lots of small-scale alternative enterprises. These show how business can operate in a radically different way. Though they are confined to pockets here and there, they are celebrated as heralds of a new future – which will arrive, some day, somehow.
If the options so far don’t look as though they would deliver the improvements needed any time soon, then at least there is still the ultimate political weapon – the democratic revolution. If those in power deny you a vote in deciding who should be in control of national policies, then the vote is what you press for. If you have the vote, then use it get those you trust to represent your interests elected. If there is no prospect of a party with policies that best enhance the common good getting elected, then work with others to build a party or an alliance that merits your vote.
Plutocrats have for decades encroached on the common good and rewritten the rules at every level to boost their own aggrandisement. It will take a revolution to end their iniquitous reign. But as we have seen, people who talk a good talk about revolutions may be the last people to turn to if we really want to change the world for the better.
Forget about installing another dictatorship, see endless disruption for the nihilistic trip it is, avoid the con-merchants who will invoke God and the Flag to exploit you even more, and put aside idle dreams that a good society can blossom when government stays in the hands of oppressors. Only a large-scale democratic revolution will secure the necessary changes. So start building a wide progressive alliance, engage with citizens in all walks of life, and rally support for policy changes that no party wanting to hold public office can afford to reject.
Wednesday, 15 October 2014
Six Degrees of Cooperation
Since Robert Owen pioneered his cooperative and communitarian experiments in 19th century Britain and America, theorists and activist alike have been looking to build on them to develop a systematic alternative to prevailing socio-economic arrangements.
200 years on from Owen’s A New View of Society, there is no denying that neither the ‘free’ (meaning rigged) market favoured by exploitative businesses nor the ‘planned’ (i.e., authoritarian) economy imposed by discredited regimes has come up with anything other than ever worsening waste of human potential and thoughtless depletion of precious resources. But how can the latent synergy of cooperation, sustainable communities, and common resources for the common good be realised in advancing towards a state of synetopia?
Across the world, in opposition to the Anglo-American neo-liberal juggernaut, reform advocates (such as Pat Conaty, John Restakis, David Bollier, Silke Helfrich, Michel Bauwens, Julie Ristau, Ana Micka, and Jay Walljasper – see Note 1 below for more information) have drawn attention to the ingredients necessary to bring about, what in some quarters has been termed, the ‘cooperative commons’.
So what holds the key to our societal transformation? In essence, it is about turning cooperation from a general aspiration, by six specific degrees, into a guiding norm for human interactions.
First, inclusive cooperation requires that the needs of all be taken into account without discrimination. People are to work together, not to serve the privileged interests of a class of owners/bosses or a cadre of vanguard leaders, but to enable each to lead a fulfilling life.
Secondly, educative cooperation means that people are to learn through their shared deliberations and open enquiries what would improve their circumstances without being diverted by dogmatic injunctions or distorting propaganda.
Thirdly, democratic cooperation demands that every one is given an equal say in shaping the policies that will affect them, or choosing a representative who will give detailed consideration before making a policy decision on one’s behalf.
Fourthly, renewable cooperation calls for the reliance on resources and mutual goodwill to be conducted so that neither is used up. Cooperation and social development can only be sustained when irresponsible short-termism is put aside for the sake of our shared future.
Fifthly, federal cooperation operates through the principle of subsidiarity so that anything that can be effectively carried out at the most local level or smallest unit should be done so accordingly, but whatever needs a larger grouping to resolve differences or pool greater resources to achieve common aims should be passed up to the next appropriate level to deal with.
The sixth and final requirement is statutory cooperation, which implies that all concerned should recognise that the rule of law is essential to maintain fairness and prevent freeriders and oppressors from taking advantage of others. Cooperation must therefore extend to supporting government institutions from the local to the global level.
The question for any organisation or mode of human interaction is, therefore, how much further it needs to go to meet the cooperative norm fully. One response to shortfalls is to provide examples, explanations and encouragement to help people move forward in line with the reform agenda. But this has to be complemented by a political response – if vested interests persist in blocking change or simply continuing with the callous exploitation of human and natural resources; and those in government are too timid to take action, or worse, in cahoots with them, then reformists must develop a common strategy to get a majority who are supportive of their proposals elected.
And lest it’s forgotten, any political party to be entrusted with winning power to facilitate the necessary reforms, should itself have advanced by the six requisite degrees of cooperation.
-
Note 1:
The following may be of interest to readers who would like to learn more about the socio-economic changes advocated by the cooperative and commons movements:
- ‘Co-ops and commons approaches to reviving places’: essays by Kate Swade, Pat Conaty, Ed Mayo, and others
- ‘The Wealth of the Commons’: ed by David Bollier & Silke Helfrich
- ‘Humanizing the Economy’: John Restakis
- ‘The Resilience Imperative: Cooperative Transitions to a Steady-state Economy’: Pat Conaty and Michael Lewis
- On the Commons: Julie Ristau & Ana Micka.
- 'All That We Share': Jay Walljasper.
- P2P Foundation: Michel Bauwens
- ‘Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship’: Henry Tam
200 years on from Owen’s A New View of Society, there is no denying that neither the ‘free’ (meaning rigged) market favoured by exploitative businesses nor the ‘planned’ (i.e., authoritarian) economy imposed by discredited regimes has come up with anything other than ever worsening waste of human potential and thoughtless depletion of precious resources. But how can the latent synergy of cooperation, sustainable communities, and common resources for the common good be realised in advancing towards a state of synetopia?
Across the world, in opposition to the Anglo-American neo-liberal juggernaut, reform advocates (such as Pat Conaty, John Restakis, David Bollier, Silke Helfrich, Michel Bauwens, Julie Ristau, Ana Micka, and Jay Walljasper – see Note 1 below for more information) have drawn attention to the ingredients necessary to bring about, what in some quarters has been termed, the ‘cooperative commons’.
So what holds the key to our societal transformation? In essence, it is about turning cooperation from a general aspiration, by six specific degrees, into a guiding norm for human interactions.
First, inclusive cooperation requires that the needs of all be taken into account without discrimination. People are to work together, not to serve the privileged interests of a class of owners/bosses or a cadre of vanguard leaders, but to enable each to lead a fulfilling life.
Secondly, educative cooperation means that people are to learn through their shared deliberations and open enquiries what would improve their circumstances without being diverted by dogmatic injunctions or distorting propaganda.
Thirdly, democratic cooperation demands that every one is given an equal say in shaping the policies that will affect them, or choosing a representative who will give detailed consideration before making a policy decision on one’s behalf.
Fourthly, renewable cooperation calls for the reliance on resources and mutual goodwill to be conducted so that neither is used up. Cooperation and social development can only be sustained when irresponsible short-termism is put aside for the sake of our shared future.
Fifthly, federal cooperation operates through the principle of subsidiarity so that anything that can be effectively carried out at the most local level or smallest unit should be done so accordingly, but whatever needs a larger grouping to resolve differences or pool greater resources to achieve common aims should be passed up to the next appropriate level to deal with.
The sixth and final requirement is statutory cooperation, which implies that all concerned should recognise that the rule of law is essential to maintain fairness and prevent freeriders and oppressors from taking advantage of others. Cooperation must therefore extend to supporting government institutions from the local to the global level.
The question for any organisation or mode of human interaction is, therefore, how much further it needs to go to meet the cooperative norm fully. One response to shortfalls is to provide examples, explanations and encouragement to help people move forward in line with the reform agenda. But this has to be complemented by a political response – if vested interests persist in blocking change or simply continuing with the callous exploitation of human and natural resources; and those in government are too timid to take action, or worse, in cahoots with them, then reformists must develop a common strategy to get a majority who are supportive of their proposals elected.
And lest it’s forgotten, any political party to be entrusted with winning power to facilitate the necessary reforms, should itself have advanced by the six requisite degrees of cooperation.
-
Note 1:
The following may be of interest to readers who would like to learn more about the socio-economic changes advocated by the cooperative and commons movements:
- ‘Co-ops and commons approaches to reviving places’: essays by Kate Swade, Pat Conaty, Ed Mayo, and others
- ‘The Wealth of the Commons’: ed by David Bollier & Silke Helfrich
- ‘Humanizing the Economy’: John Restakis
- ‘The Resilience Imperative: Cooperative Transitions to a Steady-state Economy’: Pat Conaty and Michael Lewis
- On the Commons: Julie Ristau & Ana Micka.
- 'All That We Share': Jay Walljasper.
- P2P Foundation: Michel Bauwens
- ‘Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship’: Henry Tam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)