Radical Digressions

• Home
• Articles
• The Attic
• Quotes
• Links

Radical Digressions
Ulli Diemer's Notebook #2

Keep stressing democracy

#

It seems to me that one of the key themes which socialists should be hammering away at is that of democracy.

The issue of democracy, or the lack of it, connects, or has the potential to connect, a wide diversity of the struggles and movements. The perspective of a radical democratization of society can contribute to linking the concerns and demands of separate movements, and also has the potential to help move them forward. As socialists we should make it a priority to try to put the issue of democracy - and of the meaning of democracy - on the agenda of movements for change, and on the agenda of society as a whole.

The demand for democracy is intuitively attractive and reasonable to many, certainly including those already active in working for change. The idea of democracy is deeply rooted in our political culture.Why not take advantage of the generally accepted idea that democracy is a good thing, and raise the question of what democracy really is and why we actually have so little of it? What could be more subversive and radical than actually taking our society's democratic rhetoric seriously?

We socialists could play an important role in making democracy a central theme in our social and environmental movements, and in making it a cutting edge of those movements as they challenge the status quo. Doing so can raise key questions of power and accountability and challenge the legitimacy of the existing power structures.

On a wide range of economic and environmental issues, we could work to make an issue not only of what is being done, but of how decisions are made. Why should there be a class of owners entitled to take decisions which profoundly affect thousands of people and entire communities, while those whose health, livelihoods and future are at stake have no say? Why shouldn't economic decisions be made democratically, by those who actually do the work and need the goods and services?

What we socialists can offer, in other words, is a vision of a radically democratic socialist society, in which power is taken away from corporations, governments, bureaucracies, and experts, and dispersed widely. We can challenge the idea that politics is just about elections and elected office, presenting instead the goal of real democratic control of social and economic life, including workers' control in the workplace and community control in our towns and neighbourhoods.

To do this, we don't have to claim to have a blueprint for how a democratic society would look. We can acknowledge that there are important questions of how, for example, one balances majority rule and minority rights, of how individual freedoms can be safeguarded against potential abuse by a majority.

What we can strive to do is to put the issue of democracy high on the agenda, and to try to show how taking democracy seriously points toward a radically transformed, socialist, society.

Debating the NDP

#

I see that Canadian Dimension magazine is still afflicted with the Left's debilitating NDP-addiction. Once again, several articles in the latest issue scrutinize the NDP to determine whether it is moving left, right, forward, backwards, or simply spinning its wheels. Once again, well-meaning contributors offer their sincere opinions about what the NDP should be doing.

The Left has engaged in these same futile pursuits since 1933, achieving pretty much the same result as a dog chasing its tail. Anyone who today still harbours hope that the NDP will change in ways the Left would like ought to join New Democrats Anonymous.

Now that it has held office in four provinces/territories, it is more urgent than ever that we be clear about the nature of the NDP. Activists seeking radical change need to understand that it is fruitless to base their strategies on the assumption that the NDP can be the vehicle for achieving their goals.

The NDP is not, and never will be, a party of radical social change. What it is, is a capitalist party with a mildly social-democratic orientation. It represents a more 'enlightened' model of capitalism in the tradition of the New Deal, Keynesianism, and European-style social contracts, as opposed to the hard right agenda of neo-conservatism. The 'softer' approach which the NDP represents is based on the assumption that the best way to ensure the long-term stability of capitalism is to pay 'fair' wages, keep unemployment relatively low, and provide a reasonable level of social services. The hard right, on the other hand, is willing to ignite widespread discontent and confrontation for the sake of adding another few percentage points to the rate of profit.

The neo-conservative strategy relies heavily on ramming through structural changes which will be extremely difficult to reverse in the event of a change of government. In Canada, this strategy is represented by locking Canada into continental economic structures by means of 'free trade', ripping up the railways and giving the very land they ran on to private owners, 'privatizing' institutions built with public money, shutting down CBC stations - well, we all know the whole ugly depressing story.

In disgust and anger, voters have at times turned against the perpetrators and elected NDP governments. Undoubtedly, this is an improvement. NDP governments will at least refrain from committing atrocities on the same scale, and while they are extremely unlikely to act to reverse all the looting and wrecking done by the right-wing governments, they will seek to ameliorate some of the worst effects. Perhaps welfare recipients will get a little more, perhaps money will be found to set up a few additional women's shelters. This may not be much, but it is something. Appallingly, many Canadians are now in such desperate straits that a few extra dollars in their welfare cheques will make a real difference in their lives. The funding of a few more women's shelters will rescue a certain number of women and children from lives in hell.

But while we can be briefly grateful for these crumbs, and apply pressure to demand more, we should not delude ourselves that the NDP will ever move to change the underlying realities of power on which our society rests. It has neither the desire, nor the mandate, nor the base of support, to do so. The records of all previous social-democratic governments, in Canada or anywhere else, are evidence of what such governments are like.

Rather than pursuing the mirage of the NDP being miraculously transformed into a radical, activist party - a fantasy which has sucked energy out of the left for more than six decades - we should be relating to NDP governments in the exactly the same way as we would relate to any other government.

By all means, let us pressure them and lobby them. Let us fight for every concession and every victory we can get.

Let us especially push for the greatest possible degree of democratization of decision-making on every level, remembering that democratization has to mean wresting power away from governments, including NDP governments, as well as from corporations. To the degree that we can successfully assert the demand that decisions - economic as well as governmental - should be subject to real grassroots democratic control, we will be achieving lasting gains which future governments will not be able to easily reverse.

But beyond that, we should stop looking to the NDP, in or out of government, to implement our agendas for us. This will never happen. All we will ever get from them is a few modest reforms, and even those will only come if we push them long and hard.

When it comes to fundamental change, we are on our own. To pursue fundamental change, activists in social movements need to get together, without any lingering backward looks at the NDP, and develop common programs and strategies. Then we need to act, independently of the NDP, to achieve them.

In doing this, we should certainly leave the doors wide open for grassroots members of the NDP who want to work with us. But we should firmly close the door on any hopes that the NDP as an institution will ever be a vehicle for achieving real change.

See also: Let's Stop Kidding Ourselves about the NDP  

Falsifying history

#

In his review of Mel Hurtig's book The Betrayal of Canada, R. T. Naylor perpetuates the myth that a majority of Canadians voted in favour of free trade in the 1988 election. Naylor claims that "there actually was a vigorous national debate and the free trade agreement won."

Naylor is falsifying history. In fact, 55 per cent of the electorate voted against free trade in what Naylor himself characterizes as a "referendum-cum-election."

It is only because Canada's electoral system is profoundly undemocratic that it was possible for the Mulroney Tories to form a majority government with only 43 per cent of the votes. They then used that majority to force through the free trade deal even though a substantial majority of the electorate had voted against it.

Naylor adds insult to injury when he goes on to say that “people in liberal democracies ultimately get the governments (and therefore the government policies) they deserve.” In this liberal democracy, a clear majority of the people voted against the government and its free trade deal, only to get them anyway, thanks to an undemocratic electoral system.

Psychotherapist out of touch

#

It would be difficult to imagine advice for children and parents more damaging than that offered by psychotherapist Darlene Hall in a recent article in the Globe and Mail.

According to Ms Hall, “enlightened parents” who want to reduce “childhood victimization” should stop hugging or touching their children unless they have first asked for and received permission to do so from the child. The offer of a parental hug or touch “should be given and articulated to the child in a clear and direct manner by the adult.” If touching the child is unavoidable, as in bathing or giving medicine, then the parent is to explain “why they need to touch the child, and they should continue to talk to the child as the activity unfolds.”

What a perfect recipe for raising children to be self-conscious and uncomfortable about their bodies, about touching, and about being touched! In Ms Hall's emotionally constipated vision of family life, there appears to be no room for spontaneous physical expressions of affection. Touching one's own child is an inherently suspect activity, never to be engaged in without prior discussion.

Someone needs to explain to Ms Hall that spontaneous touching and hugging are natural behaviour all over the world among people who like or love each other. They play a crucial role in developing a child's sense of being loved and secure. Normal parents don't ask a crying toddler “Would it be all right with you if I were to pick you up and comfort you?”

The best that can be said for Ms Hall's advice is that it would be sure to generate plenty of additional business for “experts” on family problems like herself.

Yes Means No?

#

Betty Disero and Beverley Richardson, in a recent letter to the editor, profess support for the principle that “No Means No” and “Yes Means Yes”. However, after paying lip service to this admirably clear rule, they reveal that what they actually support is the position that “Yes means No”.

Adopting a line of argument which is rapidly gaining popularity among those who wish to use society’s desire to prevent assault as a cover for legislating their own brand of morality, Disero and Richardson claim that “Yes” means “No” if one or both of the parties are “under the influence of alcohol”. According to this point of view, drinking and sex should be equated with drinking and driving, and the law should view both with equal severity.

Those who equate these situations betray their incomprehension of what the issue of consent is all about. No one, whatever their state of sobriety, wishes to hit by a car, whether it is driven by a drunk driver or by a sober one. People who drive when intoxicated inflict a considerable risk of such collisions on others, and that is why we as a society refuse to allow people to drive after they have been drinking. The question of consent never arises, because being run into by a drunk driver is never a consensual act.

However, people in varying stages of sobriety do willingly engage in sex. Individuals who are too intoxicated to drive safely are still quite capable of desiring sex, of consenting to sex, and of participating in sexual activity. It may offend the sensibilities of the new puritans, but some people actually find that they desire and enjoy sex more when they have been drinking or taking certain drugs. This should not be a matter for the law.

It should also not be the business of the law to legislate a paternalistic double standard by holding that a woman is no longer capable of distinguishing between "Yes" and "No" if she has been drinking, while a man remains capable of telling the difference when he has been drinking. There may be times when there is guilt or regret afterwards about the decision to engage in sex, but if there has been no coercion, that too should not be a matter for the law. Justice Minister Campbell has therefore acted correctly in removing the “intoxication” provision from Bill C-49.

The business of the law should be to make it clear that “No” means “No” and that society will not tolerate the use of force or coercion to obtain sex. Anyone who can't tell the difference between “Yes” and “No” is part of the problem.

Pluralism, not religious proselytizing

#

I am writing to the CRTC to express my opposition to the proposal by Crossroads Television Systems to extend its programming across Canada.

I believe that broadcast licenses for stations affiliated with particular religious denominations are in contravention of the principles of democratic pluralism which most Canadians value highly, and more particularly, in contravention of the principles which have governed access to the public airwaves.

A democratic, pluralistic society is possible only if there exists the opportunity for on-going dialogue and debate among the many different points of view existing in society. Such dialogue is already limited by the existing concentration of media ownership in a relatively few corporate hands.

If the trend is to be that each religious, political, and ideological group is to have control of its own stations, Canadian society will increasingly be fragmented into hostile ideological groups who do not communicate with each other or even get to hear each other's views. If such a license is granted to one religious group which claims to have a monopoly on truth, then what possible argument could there be against giving a license to every group -- religious, political, or special interest -- that asked for one and had the finances to support it?

Religious freedom does not imply the right of any group to use the public airwaves to promulgate their own religious views while excluding all conflicting points of view. Nor does religious freedom imply the right to be exempt from the principles which govern all broadcasters in Canada.

I hope that the CRTC will firmly reject the application from CTS, and similarly reject any further applications from groups wishing to promote a single point of view while excluding others.

The futile war on drugs and prostitution

#

John Sewell makes an important point when he says that public housing projects need to be physically redesigned to make them more like ordinary neighbourhoods with through streets, public sidewalks, front and back yards, and better laid out lobbies and hallways. Such changes would be important steps towards creating a sense of neighbourhood and community.

He is kidding himself, however, if he thinks this would address the root causes of drug dealing, prostitution, and street crime. At best, the result would be to shift these activities to another neighbourhood.

No redesign is going to overcome the effects of lack of meaningful work, lack of money, lack of control, and lack of hope. These inevitably breed crime, especially when they occur in the midst of a society whose dominant value system says that the only thing that matters is to get as much for yourself as possible.

Addressing these problems is going to involve a “redesign” of our entire society, not just of housing projects.

There is, however, a much simpler and more immediate solution to the specific problems of illegal drug dealing and prostitution: decriminalization.

Our obsessive and utterly futile “war” against these activities is not only turning tens of thousands of people into “criminals”, but is corrupting our entire society. The simplest way to get drug dealers off the street corners and out of public housing is to decriminalize drugs.

Self-determination for some

#

Pierre Bourgault takes English Canadians to task for not speaking out loudly enough in favour of Quebec's right to self-determination.

“The problem,” he writes, “is that a lot of people are in favour of the principle of self-determination for all the people of the world except the people of Quebec.”

Perhaps Prof. Bourgault could set us an example by speaking out himself in support of the right of self-determination for all the people of Quebec, including those who don't want to be part of an independent Quebec.

When may we expect the publication of his spirited defence of self-determination for the Cree of Northern Quebec? If the people of some regions of Quebec, say the Eastern Townships or Montreal, want to remain part of Canada rather than join an independent Quebec, may we look forward to hearing Prof. Bourgault’s voice defending their right to self-determination, even if that means seceding from Quebec?

Surely Prof. Bourgault and his fellow independentistes would not allow themselves to be guilty of “the silence, the indifference, even the scorn” for the principle of self-determination which he claims typifies the attitude of non-Quebecers?

See also: Thinking About Self-Determination

Things are going well for everyone — except the vast majority

#

No doubt things look pretty rosy from the salad bars of the “upscale restaurants” in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, where foreign journalists like Geoffrey York rub shoulders with “swarms of Western advisers and consultants” (Obscure little country becomes big success).

Too bad it didn't occur to Mr. York to find out how the people of Kyrgyzstan are faring under the marvellous “market reforms” which have turned the country into “the darling of the world's economic reformers”.

Had he troubled to do so, he might have discovered that while Kyrgyzstan is being “flooded with planeloads of foreign experts who have lavished praise on its reformist government and its liberalized economy”, the income and living standards of the vast majority of the population have dropped, unemployment has risen dramatically, average life expectancy has fallen, and rural poverty has increased.

Mr. York's sole allusion to these unfortunate side-effects of the “model” free market miracle which has foreign investors drooling is to observe that “the reforms have been slow to bring benefits to the ordinary people of the country.”

In plain language, most people are worse off than they were before. Some “model”. Some “big success”.

Absolutely disagree

#

Susan G. Cole may like to think of herself as a “thoughtful anti-porn activist”, but it's hard to take her claims seriously when she tells us that the difference between Americans and Canadians is that Canadians have a commendable desire to be subjected to censorship, while a belief in “absolute free speech” is an American peculiarity (Absolute Trash From ACLU Prez).

Anyone who thinks that the U.S. is a bastion of “absolute free speech” must have spent the last few decades on another planet.

And – no doubt this will come as a shock to Cole – many Canadians adhere to what she calls the “extremist position” on censorship, i.e., we're against it.

Believe it or not, some of us would rather not have customs officials and cops deciding what we can read or look at. We'd rather decide for ourselves.

The meaning of democracy

#

The Globe and Mail's denunciation of the Day of Action protest as a violation of democracy makes perfect sense – as long as one understands the special way the Globe defines “democracy”.

“Democracy” according to this definition is a safe election every four years or so in which voters choose between corporate-dominated parties whose policies are virtually indistinguishable on all fundamental issues.

“Democratic government” in this context means rule by a political party, elected by a minority of the electorate, which in office breaks many of the major promises it made during the election campaign. The role of the vast majority of the population in this version of “democracy” is to remain passive and not interfere.

What “democracy” definitely does not mean, when the Globe uses the term, is the active involvement of the majority of the population in governing society to ensure that economic and social policy serve the needs and interests of the majority rather than a small wealthy elite.

The Globe is quite right. Popular protests like the Days of Action are a threat to its version of “democracy”.

The Star’s biased reporting

#

According to the Toronto Star, residents of Al Leach’s riding attending a public meeting in their own riding are “party crashers”, while Tories brought in “from around the province” are there to “bolster” the event.

George Orwell would be impressed. Residents of the community are illegitimate intruders at a public meeting to discuss the future of their community. Outsiders brought in to tell them that resistance is futile are the forces of legitimacy.

Clearly the Star's journalistic standards have crashed beyond any possibility of bolstering. Sad news for those who can remember when the Star was something more than a government propaganda sheet.

Polluted logic

#

The business of allowing polluters to buy their way out of complying with the law is an innovation with vast untapped potential. (Article: Ontario Hydro sells pollution credits to Connecticut company).

For example, law-abiding drivers could sell their unused speeding and dangerous driving credits to drivers who want to be able to hit the road without having to worry about speed limits or the niceties of the Highway Traffic Act.

Agribusiness companies whose products contain pesticide concentrations exceeding those permitted by law could buy surplus pesticide contamination credits from organic farmers.

In the spirit of this new trend, I am now ready to entertain bids for my unused burglary and armed robbery credits from individuals who have exhausted their own quotas in the course of their trade. Cash only, please.

Let the free market rule!

Interventions

#

Globe and Mail columnist Marcus Gee is off base in citing East Timor as an example of a civil conflict in which the Western powers failed to intervene.

First of all, Indonesia’s attack on East Timor was in no way a civil war. It was an invasion, an act of military aggression across an international border, comparable to Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Further, Gee is completely wrong in suggesting that the United States and its allies failed to intervene when Indonesia invaded East Timor. On the contrary, the United States intervened massively – on the side of Indonesia. The U.S. supplied the bulk of the weaponry used by the Indonesian military, even expediting additional shipments of ammunition and weapons to help crush the unexpectedly vigorous East Timorese resistance. Throughout, the U.S. provided diplomatic cover at the United Nations and elsewhere to protect the Suharto dictatorship from international sanctions.

The myth of a free market in publishing and high-tech

#

The two readers of Computing Canada who wrote to complain about Bill C-55 would have done well to familiarize themselves with the facts before sending off such spectacularly ill-informed letters.

Contrary to what Ryan Jamieson imagines, Bill C-55 has nothing in it to “impose huge cross-border penalties on U.S. magazines entering Canada.” The legislation has no provisions whatever affecting the sale of foreign publications, U.S. or otherwise: they would continue to be available on Canadian newsstands exactly as they are now.

Bill C-55 deals with advertising services: ads placed in American split-run magazines by Canadian advertisers would draw tax penalties. This is standard anti-dumping legislation, variants of which are used by many countries, notably the U.S., to prevent unfair competition. Split-runs are a classic example of dumping in that they can be produced without having to hire staff to produce the content, because the content is picked up free of charge from the U.S. edition. This means they can sell ad space far below normal market rates and wipe out Canadian magazines by eliminating their source of revenue.

Mr. Jamieson further betrays his lack of knowledge with his absurd claim that the IT industry flourished “because of a free-market environment”. He could not possibly be more wrong. The high-tech industries, in the U.S. in particular, owe their very existence to massive levels of government subsidies and intervention. The Internet, for example, was created and developed by the U.S. military in co-operation with government-funded universities. It was turned over to the “free market” only after more than 25 years of publicly-funded work had made it commercially viable. The electronics, semi-conductor, and computer industries, the communications industry, the aviation industry, the biotechnology sector – all the important high-tech sectors in the U.S. – have been developed through huge, and continuing, public subsidies backed by extremely aggressive protectionist legislation.

If Canadians are going to compete in the global market, we owe it to ourselves to understand how that marketplace really works. And that's a good argument for taking steps to protect our industries, including publishing, from unfair competition.

The law-breaking legislator

#

According to Doug Griffiths, the Alberta MLA who plans to break the law by refusing to register his guns, “a firearm is a tool. It's like a vehicle is a tool, it's just something you use to get a particular job done.”

So then, is Mr. Griffiths being consistent by refusing to carry a driver's license or to put a license plate on his car? If not, why not?

Saddam's Alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction

#

Why doesn't Saddam use his weapons now [March 2003] if he really has them?

The United States justifies its unilateral decision to go to war with the claim that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction which could it use to attack the US.

The US claims that the threat from these weapons is so great, and so imminent, that the inspections process backed by most United Nations members has to be abruptly terminated so the US can launch an immediate attack on Iraq.

Under these circumstances, Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi leadership, can have no possible illusions about the fact that an American attack is about to begin and that they have little or no chance of surviving it.

If Saddam Hussein really possesses these alleged weapons of mass destruction, would it not be logical, from his point of view, to launch them against the United States right away, today, while he is still alive and still able to use them? Knowing he is about to be annihilated, why would he possibly hold back from using them now?

There is only one logical explanation: that he does not in fact possess the weapons capability that the US claims he does. And if this is so, then many thousands of Iraqi will die because of an utterly unnecessary war, a war launched on a pretext that is clearly false. Such a war would be a crime against humanity.

See also: The Iraq crisis in context

I blog therefore I am.