A very Bourgeois revolution

The notoriously litigious Barclay Clones have given us a textbook in bourgeois revolution - they have used their financial might to bring democracy to the Island of Sark through the courts - and now democracy has arrived, and voted against what they wanted (their own privately owned Bond villain base, it seems) they have decided to punish the puny mortals for their temerity to use their democracy, by disinvesting in the tiny island and causes relative mass unemployment. Their spokedroid has said: "The island cannot at the same time treat the Barclay family in the way that it has and expect them to continue investing large sums of money into its economy." Hulk Smash. Mongrol Smush. Big Jobs!

Once again, they prove that democracy is impossible in a society of unequal wealth - the microcosm of Sark has given the totalitarian pair their opportunity to prove that. It also shows the value of Harry's place style democratisation.

And what of the publicity shy scheming meglomaniacs themselves? Well, through their purely viscious actions they have exposed themselves to more headlines and public oprobrium than most folk could manage in a life time - I hope their lawyers hands drop off writing out all the vexatious writs that will now follow to keep the filth wallowing pigs able to live in their castles in the air.

Local democracy, for local people

Stuart asks in comments (post below) what my views on the Zapatistas are. Well, I have to say, I've never studied the movement in depth, my cursory impression has been that they have been a typical rural geurilla movement filling a space in a remote region that central government is unable/unwilling to fill, and winning a sort of truce with that state. In other words, they have built local administration where there was essentially (in effect) none at all.

Hence, if I'm not wrong, they represent a construction of local democracy, an improvisation. They may bring some interesting characteristics to the pot, but they needn't necessarilly be imitated where there is functional local democratic administration. Now, Stuart and I have disagreed in the past on this question, I maintain that local administration in the UK is pretty democratic (or at least was, under the old council/committee system, the new leader/cabinet model is fundamentally undemocratic). Of course, I reckon that in an upswelling of political consciousness, that would be transformed by the demands for participation by the community, but that would be a quantitative rather than a qualitative shift, using facilities that are formalities and dead letters now and making them the tools of viable engagement.

I am faintly fond of Murray Bookchin's libertarian municipalism, though suspicious of the fetishisation of face to face meetings. I think that broad based, far flung ballot box democracy is functional and liberating enough - I don't think we need to live in cities where a cry can be heard from the city wall (his Aristotelean example). Further, Militant and the Bennites tried something like that in the UK and found central government on their case.

Thus, I think that we cannot ignore the state, nor need we, we can, through active determined use of existing structures make the changes we desire.

The path of democracy

In Bolivia democracy isn't going down a smooth path, regional cessesionists are trying to thwart the will of the overall majority - will the US back any breakaways there? After all, Russia has made the precedents...

Anyway, Zimbabwe's democracy seems to be just about holding up. To their immense credit, the MDC never turned to guerilla warfare, and put the safety of its supporters high up its agenda - high enough to back away from the violence of the state. Today's power sharing deal could see Tsvangirai just turn shit pol with his feet under the table, or it could see Zimbabwe finally emerge as a stable democracy.

To be clear, in both cases, it is democracy and not street violence that must prevail - as the MDC has shown, plugging away can and does work. The conquest of democracy is an essential tool in the worker's hands for self defence and revolution. These events knock the sterility of the neo-con/cruise missile left's perspectives into a cocked hat. This is the way democracy spreads. This will do more good than the Iraq war or the Afghan campaign.

Now, we have to wait and see what will happen to Chavez in Venezuela, he needs to go for the good of democracy...

Et tu quoque

Sharp eyed readers may have noticed an addition to the blog roll, an anarchist of my acquaintance (and prolific writer on the subject) here.

Going to his blog reminded me of why I am not an fuckinganarchist, and why I may not be the best person to chair a forum involving the Socialist Party and Ian Bone from class war (I'll put up a proper notice later). Suffice to say that I'm firmly of the opinion that fuckinganarchist is a compound noun that is now indivisible.

Especially so after reading the AFAQ for the first time in a while. Especially the stuff trying to claim that Anarchists aren't anti-democratic. After a string of tu quoque justifications, and talk of collective free association and federated delegates, we get this gem:

As a general rule-of-thumb, anarchists have little problem with the minority accepting the decisions of the majority (!!!) after a process of free debate and discussion. As we argue in section A.2.11, such collective decision making is compatible with anarchist principles -- indeed, is based on them. By governing ourselves directly, we exclude others governing us. However, we do not make a fetish of this, recognising that, in certain circumstances, the minority must and should ignore majority decisions. For example, if the majority of an organisation decide on a policy which the minority thinks is disastrous then why should they follow the majority? Equally, if the majority make a decision which harms the liberty and equality of a non-oppressive and non-exploitative minority, then that minority has the right to reject the "authority" of the majority

Now, there are only two choices in collective life, the dictatorship of the minority, or the dictatorship of the majority - this is an inescapable fact. Anarchists do not make a fetish (what others might dare to call a principle) of democracy. hence why they talk of small collectives federated so that everyone can join in the heated debates, rather than wider scale polities in which decisions may be delegated to some specific body covering a wider area, and all embracing solidarity. What if, to reverse their own example, one small collective began to implement racist policies, surely it would be for the majority to impose upon it and, by force if necessary, prevent such behaviour? (I'll note, racism might not be oppressive, if, say, the form was simply that of excluding certain types of people from community X, and thus wouldn't fall within the qualificatiosn given above).

Finally, I'll just point out the standard Socialist Party view, that anarchists, by denegrating democracy as an organisational principle and fetishising insurrection and revolt give grist to the mill of other totalitarian creeds, like fascism, and make the slaughter of workers in civil war more likely than less.

That is why I'm not an anarchist. That is why I oppose anarchism.

Update: While I'm here I note that AFAQ on Bakunin's criticism of Marx doesn't mention Marx wrote a reply to Bakunin's Statism & Anarchy - which directly rebuts some of the contents of that section of the AFAQ...

Death of a canard?

There can never be a war between liberal democracies - they say - however, both Russia and Georgia are democracies (whatever flaws you can point out in Russia's democracy, you can find equal measures of flaws even in maturer democracies). Of course, the theory may try to save itself by saying that neither are mature democracies, but they do have well over ten years each (and changes of government) to suggest that their democracy is entrenched.

The ugly truth is that the situational logic of nation states plays its usual part, and their specific political form can't halt that - more democracy won't mean peace, only common ownership will.

Stand ye close and resolute

So, back to politics.

The BBC has had a couple of really good in depth reports recently, explaining just why it is Mugabe in Zimbabwe commands such support from his contemporary African leaders - and tellingly where the problem lies.

The correspondent this morning said Mugabe had been likely to give in on the election issue, but that his cotery, forged in the military struggle for power, were unwilling to let their positions go without a fight - they need him to protect themselves.

Significantly, and I suspect hopefully, the MDC have not turned to armed struggle themselves, as indeed they would be "justified" in doing now they have been beaten into submission - but that way would only replicate the tragedy of ZANU-PF.

Some might argue that the Zimbabwe situations shows the folly of electoral tactics like ours, the MDC have literally been beaten into submission. But, let's not forget, they have the majority in Parliament to protect, they have damaged Mugabe's legitimacy, and there are signs that Zuma in South Africa, closely allied with the trade unions there, may be more hostile to Mugabe.

Let's remember that Zimbabwe is an economic dessert, the Unions there are powerless, but the struggle for democracy continues.

An injury to one is an injury to all.

Update: via Harry Barnes comes this worthwhile effort from the TUC:

Defeat is fine

Well, asides from being mugginsed into beign the minuites secretary, and still being half the age of the other members present I suffered my first political defeat at a co-op branch meeting this week.

For some reason, I didn't think it right that co-operators should affiliate to the Cuba solidarity campaign - dunno, I just think that the authoritarian rule of the Cuban Communist Party has little to do with co-operation. Little did I know.

After all, they have an all appointed legislature (sounds familiar, don't it?) and join Saudi Arabia in passing on the job of Head of State from brother to brother (quite an achievement, they also have high ranks in state murder, but that's by the by).

At least, though, it was refreshing to have a meaningful political debate, and I don't mind losing, its the fight that matters.

More substantial blogging soon, I promise...