Paul on Democracy

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Six months ago Paul posted in the archives several theoretical
articles, including one on democracy. Jon commented on it. I wrote
this piece in October, and am submitting it.

Chris B, London.    31.1.96

________________________________________

Paul and John Lowrie's piece in the archives on the meaning of
democracy is remarkable in several ways. To look to ancient Greece
for a rebirth of marxist political aims is unexpected.

I accept I think a major premise of the article: that what
passes for democracy is spurious. The chance for anyone to
change their lives and their social situation is very limited. To
imagine there is an idealised state of Democracy
where problems are resolved spontaneously in freedom and
unity, is one of the illusory veils over the capitalist system. It
is the counterpart to the cynicism in politicians and the feeling
that it is all a mess and we do not know what to do with it. It
is one of people's most immediate experience of bourgeois politics.

The article seems to me to have a structural [?] approach
drawing from categories of ancient Greek political theory,
seen through new eyes. It is novel and illuminating to think of
Leninist parties, once in power, degenerating into oligarchies.
I largely agree with this argument. Our familiar electoral
system is also exposed by their criticism of it as an electoral
aristocracy, likely to reinforce rather than undermine class divisions.

This structural approach is striking and illuminating at times
but it does to me have the feel of a lack of cultural texture to
the analysis. I agreed with some of Jon's criticisms.

I do accept the example of ancient Athens is
relevant even if there were slaves. Artificial power and
machines supplement modern human productivity in a way
that is comparable to some extent to the existence of slaves
to the society of Athens as a whole.

However it is more important that the political system was
really based on a level of economic development only just
coming out of subsistence agriculture, supplemented with
handicraftsmen. A city run by a council of 500 citizens drawn
by lot and who rotate, would be competent to handle only a
very simple level of state functions.

Where I find the argument has a more modern ring of truth,
and this is more important, is in the comments in the article on
self control over economic activity. Oddly the proposed structure
of individual units that decide their affairs linked into a wider
groupe that decides affairs at its level in turn etc. has echoes
in modern capitalism. Working in the British National Health Service,
whose heart is being eaten out by the incursions of the market principle,
has emphasised to me the extent to which modern management
orthodoxy includes getting teams of people to work together.

This a countervailing tendency to the tendency towards
monopoly, but even within the largest companies the trend is
towards smaller work-groups for accounting and organisation
so that there are options about shedding activity that is not
productive for the capitalist.


My own approach to the question of democracy however is very
different to that of Paul and comrade in this essay. I favour a
systems dynamic type of analysis. I assume societies are
largely self-organising and reproducing. There has to be a
central political structure not to try to attain utopia, but to
manage conflict. This is very compatible with a marxist
appoach.

I see the powerful gravity that tends to reproduce classes as a
very serious problem for marxists, as I think Cockshott and
Lowry also assume. That class dynamic is partly to do
with the material organisation of the economy. I also think that
differentiation is part of the dynamic of all human interaction,
and people are very willing to accept inequalities for that
reason.

I think the favourable counter tendencies we may use are about -

a) increasing pressure for a flexible, adaptible work force.

b) increased psychological honesty. The media is already
doing this by its prurient exposures of the private lives of the famous
and the debunking of professional mystique. The underlying trend
however is positive.

There is therefore a long term democratic tendency
based ultimately on powerfully influential changes
in the means of production, which favour their development.

Much can be achieved politically under the general stategic aim of
extending democracy. But it would be wise to hold a point of
view about the nature of democracy that it is not neat and utopian,
but riddled with conflict and  confusion.

I would suggest that would be consistent with a marxist approach.



Chris B, London.



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------