Post by benbrucato on Nov 3, 2011 12:01:01 GMT -5
It is time that we challenge the problematic exultation of the “common good.” Even "the block" has been redefined to point toward “the common goals of the movement.” I think this is implicitly and explicitly authoritarian. I’m working on teasing out these ideas in a way that I can quickly explain them better, but want to share with you all my current thoughts.
The “common good” has been expressed in terms exclusively relevant to the status quo, partly as a means to be as welcoming as possible to all people. It hasn’t been acknowledged that by doing so, it’s welcoming only to those most privileged by the status quo, and is reflected both in our demographics, but also in the messages being projected.
The elevation of the “common goals” silences radical voices and anything on the fringe. It is antithetical to pluralism. Rather than welcoming a diversity of politics, it aims to ascertain the impossible view of “what the movement is about.” Charles Lindblom, a liberal political scientist from Yale, correctly explains that
Since this "common good" is impossible to define, it has been defined by the loudest voices, the ones most central to the unacknowledged leadership, and they wittingly or unwittingly assert their view of the long range goals of the movement and impose them on the rest of us. This is the height of opportunistic authoritarianism in the liberal form.
As a result, one particular view of “what the movement is about” has hijacked the movement. These goals are much more safe for interests of the top 80-99% and reduce the ability to deal with those relevant to the bottom 80%. We as revolutionaries should acknowledge that at some point, the illusion of the 99% should be challenged.
See: bringtheruckus.org/?q=node/152
The view of doing politics based on "the common good" is one that even liberal political scientists agree is impossible in a pluralist environment. People who disavow partisanship are “deceiving themselves.” They mischaracterize democracy
(Charles Lindblom)
Lindblom argues quite effectively that if this is to work people “must enter into that partisan discussion, rather than obscure it with a pretense of neutrality.” In Western "democracies, we “haven’t practiced this,” and “the dominant ideology, and interests in protecting the status quo, overwhelm the touted diversity. The competition of ideas is rigged.” We must “scratch the principle of the impartial pursuit of the public interest” and “put in its place the principle of thoughtful partisanship.” We should be guided “by a selection of some among other possible interests and values,” reveal these selections, and make “no claims that [our] values or interests are good for everyone”; in fact, we should acknowledge “that they are to a degree injurious to some people” and that “it is impossible for [us] to do otherwise without deceiving [ourselves]...”
Because "those who inquire most deeply into ... complex issues disagree more than do those who do not inquire," "knowledge on these issues creates diversity of belief rather than agreement."
Now, I've violated my own principle that we should "speak from our hearts." That is because I'm challenging the pervasive and nearly totalitarian view expressed from our central leadership. I also don't want my own political leanings to color this discussion. These are the words of a very, very mainstream, incrementalist (nonrevolutionary), liberal political scientist. Lindblom is one of the most respected political analysts out there. I would think that a revolutionary or insurrectionist approach would not dispute these principles, but would take them to an extreme.
Cheers,
Ben
The “common good” has been expressed in terms exclusively relevant to the status quo, partly as a means to be as welcoming as possible to all people. It hasn’t been acknowledged that by doing so, it’s welcoming only to those most privileged by the status quo, and is reflected both in our demographics, but also in the messages being projected.
The elevation of the “common goals” silences radical voices and anything on the fringe. It is antithetical to pluralism. Rather than welcoming a diversity of politics, it aims to ascertain the impossible view of “what the movement is about.” Charles Lindblom, a liberal political scientist from Yale, correctly explains that
no social scientist [or anyone for that matter] can tightly derive short-run and the middle-run interim steps from a model of a far distant, wholly harmonious society; instead he must take some partisan positions for the interim, positions that cannot be defended by reference to the distant future. Second, that there exists a model of society in the distant future in which gains impose no losses on anyone is not persuasively argued, even by Marxists.
Since this "common good" is impossible to define, it has been defined by the loudest voices, the ones most central to the unacknowledged leadership, and they wittingly or unwittingly assert their view of the long range goals of the movement and impose them on the rest of us. This is the height of opportunistic authoritarianism in the liberal form.
As a result, one particular view of “what the movement is about” has hijacked the movement. These goals are much more safe for interests of the top 80-99% and reduce the ability to deal with those relevant to the bottom 80%. We as revolutionaries should acknowledge that at some point, the illusion of the 99% should be challenged.
Combined [...] 85% of wealth concentrated [is] in the hands of the top 20%. That leaves roughly 15% of American wealth divided among the poor and working classes. The fact that a large sector of these workers can convince themselves that they are “middle class” doesn’t change the economic reality. The economy is still growing for the top 20%, its just shrinking for the bottom 80%.
See: bringtheruckus.org/?q=node/152
The view of doing politics based on "the common good" is one that even liberal political scientists agree is impossible in a pluralist environment. People who disavow partisanship are “deceiving themselves.” They mischaracterize democracy
as a cooperative search for solutions in the light of agreed values. But how does discussion actually proceed – face-to-face, through political negotiation, or through publications – when people are in conflict...? The basic form, or paradigm, of discussion is this: You try to persuade me that the policies you want (because you think they suit your values) would in fact also suit my values. You, as a partisan, appeal to my partisan values. That is about as far as discussions can go. Democratic political discussion is overwhelmingly partisan discussion. Its effectiveness lies in the frequency with which it turns out that your partisan values and mine, though different, can both be satisfied by one and the same policy.
(Charles Lindblom)
Lindblom argues quite effectively that if this is to work people “must enter into that partisan discussion, rather than obscure it with a pretense of neutrality.” In Western "democracies, we “haven’t practiced this,” and “the dominant ideology, and interests in protecting the status quo, overwhelm the touted diversity. The competition of ideas is rigged.” We must “scratch the principle of the impartial pursuit of the public interest” and “put in its place the principle of thoughtful partisanship.” We should be guided “by a selection of some among other possible interests and values,” reveal these selections, and make “no claims that [our] values or interests are good for everyone”; in fact, we should acknowledge “that they are to a degree injurious to some people” and that “it is impossible for [us] to do otherwise without deceiving [ourselves]...”
Because "those who inquire most deeply into ... complex issues disagree more than do those who do not inquire," "knowledge on these issues creates diversity of belief rather than agreement."
...if there are genuinely common interests, they are the shared interests of all partisans, all of whom will consequently pursue them. If they are hidden, they possibility of discovering them lies in interchange among partisans, each of whom is motivated to find common ground in order to turn adversaries into allies... Partisans tend to develop alternative versions of the public interest, rather than ignore it. That is often the best a society can do: acknowledge conflicting versions and work out - politically, not analytically - a resolution.
Now, I've violated my own principle that we should "speak from our hearts." That is because I'm challenging the pervasive and nearly totalitarian view expressed from our central leadership. I also don't want my own political leanings to color this discussion. These are the words of a very, very mainstream, incrementalist (nonrevolutionary), liberal political scientist. Lindblom is one of the most respected political analysts out there. I would think that a revolutionary or insurrectionist approach would not dispute these principles, but would take them to an extreme.
Cheers,
Ben