An exchange between Democracy & Nature and Alternative Press Review

An exchange between "Democracy & Nature" and "Alternative Press Review"

What follows is an exchange between the editors of Democracy & Nature and Alternative Press Review. See also www.democracynature.org/dn/vol8/editors_libertarian.htm

From: Takis Fotopoulos
To: Jason McQuinn
Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 6:05 AM
Subject: APR and D&N

Dear Jason McQuinn,

Thank you for the latest issue of APR (vol 4 no 1) which I've just received (in fact, this is the very first issue I have ever received). I found the contents very interesting and particularly so the coverage of the NATO war, although I noticed that the section which we have introduced in D&N since the March issue on 'The War in the Balkans', with extensive articles on it, has been ignored. However, what I find particularly distressing is the fact that APR, in its list of Alternative Press Magazines, omitted the only two theoretical journals in the libertarian space, i.e. Anarchy Studies and Democracy & Nature. Does this mean that you are not interested in theory but only in activism for its own sake -something that has always been the curse of libertarianism compared to Marxism? Shouldn't you positively discriminate in favour of the theoretical journals in the libertarian space, as they are so scarce, rather than putting them on an equal footing with the tens, or perhaps hundreds, of activist magazines? I must say that I find this omission particularly striking with respect to D&N which aims not just at a historical evaluation of libertarianism but at the development of a new liberatory project based on an inclusive democracy, as the subtitle of the journal in its new form (since vol 5 no 1 :The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy) indicates. I would only hope, for the sake of promoting the production of alternative theory so much needed today, that D&N will be listed in future issues of APR.

Best wishes
Takis

P.S. In case you are interested in reviewing my latest book Towards An Inclusive Democracy (Cassell 1997) -now being published in Italian and Greek translations and next year in Spanish-please let me know and I will send you a copy.

Takis Fotopoulos
Editor, Democracy & Nature

From: Jason McQuinn
Sent: 29 April 2000 09:01
To: Takis Fotopoulos
Subject: Re: APR and D&N

Dear Takis Fotopoulos,

I'm sorry to have taken so long to respond to your message of last September, but it was sent at a time when I was moving my operations (temporarily) from Missouri to California, a very complicated process which has left me months behind in answering both e-mail and postal mail. (I will soon be moving back to Missouri again this summer.)

However, I would like to let you know that Democracy & Nature (possibly in its previous incarnations) HAS been reviewed in past issues of both of my magazines, Anarchy and Alternative Press Review. And I do intend to review it again in future issues (unfortunately, I don't have the time, nor is there space to review every magazine or journal that we receive in every issue of each magazine, much as I'd like to do so). I certainly don't discriminate against theoretical journals in any way. Actually, the opposite is probably more true.

As far as Anarchist Studies is concerned, I have also reviewed the only two issues of this journal that were sent to me for review (sent at my request, by the way, since I had long ago agreed to send out announcements of the journal with subscription copies of an issue of Anarchy magazine, but then never heard another word from the journal after it began publishing--for years). Apparently, Anarchist Studies isn't very interested in being reviewed.

Despite your listing only two journals of libertarian theory, I would like to think that there are a few other libertarian publications which occasionally publish significant theoretical articles (including Anarchy magazine), though they don't focus entirely on publishing theory. I have enjoyed reading issues of your magazine when I've had the chance, and I congratulate you for continuing to publish despite the many difficulties you've had, and the many difficulties all radical publishers inevitably encounter.

Take care,
Jason McQuinn

From: Takis Fotopoulos [[email protected]]
Sent: 09 May 2000 22:58
To: Jason McQuinn
Subject: RE: APR and D&N

Dear Jason McQuinn,

Thanks for the reply and your comments about D&N. I did not know the details about Anarchist Studies. My point was that given that there are only two theoretical journals in the libertarian space (I do not classify into this category journals occasionally publishing significant theoretical articles) and taking for granted the anti-theoretical bias of many anarchists today (particularly today!) I expected some positive discrimination in favour of them and instead I noticed the opposite. Anyway, I hope that, as you seem to appreciate also the importance of theory, in the future more emphasis will be given to it. Particularly so with respect to efforts to renew anarchist thinking, like the one undertaken by D&N.

Best wishes
Takis Fotopoulos

(The following text was published in the Fall 2000 issue of Alternative Press Review)

DEMOCRACY & NATURE

International Journal of Inclusive Democracy

Vol. 4, no. 2-3 [double-issue]/undated through Vol. 5, no. 3 / Nov.’99 (editorial: 20 Woodberry Way, London N12 0HG, UK; ordering Carfax Publishing, Tayor & Francis Ltd, Cust. Services Dept.) is a 160-page academic journal (formerly Society and Nature) which seeks to create a radical democratic synthesis of traditions of socialist (economic), political and ecological democracy placing it on the borderline of anarchist theory shared with anti-state environmentalist, directly democratic and libertarian socialist positions. The Vol.4, no. 2-3 double-issue covers "Irrationalism, Religion, Ecology and Democracy." The November ‘99 issue on “Welfare and Democracy,” includes the publisher’s (Takis Fotopoulos) essay “Welfare state or Economic Democracy?” and essays on aspects of “Ecology and Ethics” by Dario Padovan, Serge Latouche and Dirk Holemans. Unfortunately, the journal is marred by the editor/publisher’s insistence on getting in the first and last word on everything discussed in every issue. Subscriptions are $58/year or £36/year

[JM]

(The following text was published in the Fall 2001 issue of Alternative Press Review)

London, 12 December 2000

Dear Jason McQuinn,

It was shocking to read the review below in the latest issue of Alternative Press Review. Not only did APR not find anything positive to say about D&N, (at the very moment it is sparing no eulogies for various activist magazines that care for action for the sake of action with no deeper political insight on what they are doing.) , but it also engages in an obvious attempt to discredit the journal by stating that ‘”Unfortunately the journal is marred by the editor/publisher’s insistence on getting in the first and last word on everything discussed in every issue”.

I would like to make the following comments with respect to this ‘presentation’ of D&N and I hope that APR will not repeat in the future statements like the above one :

1. The reviewer calls D&N an ‘academic’ journal, obviously confusing an academic with a theoretical journal. D&N is a political journal aiming to create libertarian theory, so lacking in today’s era of activism for the sake of activism. Its explicit aim is, according to the programmatic text OUR AIMS repeated in each issue, “to become the international forum for the new conception of inclusive democracy. However, although the conception of inclusive democracy is the guiding light in the journal’s problematique, the journal will continue and expand its pluralistic character by discussing and contrasting alternative radical views”

2. The Editorial Board decided from the very beginning (and by the way, I am not a publisher as your reviewer (mistakenly?) keeps calling me but the editor of D&N—something that makes a lot of difference) that although the project of inclusive democracy was ‘the guiding line’ in our problematique, we did not nevertheless wish to engage in a monologue, as is usually the case on the occasions when a new political project is proposed (see for instance CNS, the Green Perspectives etc) but to engage in dialogue with other trends in the broad Left. Dialogue, however, means that we have to assess critically alternative views from the perspective of the Inclusive Democracy project and this is what I’ve done in the editorials --not because I wanted to get ‘in the first and last word on everything discussed in every issue’, as your reviewer states in its distorting ‘presentation’ of D&N , but because otherwise the journal would indeed have ended up as an academic one involved in presenting various contradictory viewpoints with no problematique of its own. However, we explicitly stated in our AIMS that ‘Authors will be offered the opportunity to counter comment on editorial comments relating to the political viewpoint of their articles, in the dialogue section of the issue following the publication of the article’. And had your reviewer followed the journal systematically over the years he would have seen that we kept our promise strictly and that the Dialogue section has been continually expanding. A comment by a well known libertarian (attached) is indicative of how the journal is seen by serious libertarians .

3. We did not expect any praise from APR but did at least expect a factual presentation, and it is ironic that the D&N’s editor attempt to express the journal’s political perspective with respect to the various views it presents in a pluralistic way (inviting a dialogue with the authors on the critical assessment of their views) is unscrupulously attacked at the very moment that APR, (which is supposed not to express any specific political project but to be engaged in an ‘objective’ presentation of the alternative publications around), makes defamatory comments, with no possibility of a dialogue on them. I would like therefore to believe that in the next issue you will amend the situation because, if such shameful comments are repeated, there cannot obviously be any basis for the continuation of our exchange agreement.

Greetings,
Takis Fotopoulos

(The following text was published in the Fall 2001 issue of Alternative Press Review)

Dear Takis Fotopoulos,

I can ‘t speak for the other editors of APR, especially since I don ‘t always share their perspectives, but I know that my own preference is for publications that include both theoretical and practical perspectives. You won ‘t very often see me cheering on purely activist magazines, especially if they don ‘t have any substantial theoretical grounding. So I’ll agree with you that much too often “libertarian theory... [is] lacking in today ‘s era of activism for the sake of activism. “However, be that as it may, I’m not overly excited by academically oriented theoretical journals with little relevance for radical political movements, either.

I’m surprised that you were “shocked” by my review of D&N in APR. li’s not like I didn't accurately describe what the publication is like for those who might wish to read it. Although the journal may not be formally affiliated with an academic institution, it is certainly not just a theoretical journal with no trappings of academicism. In the first place, the majority of the contributors seem to clearly be academics, whether professors or students. And besides this, the tones, styles and content of most essays included tends to be very academic and off-putting to anyone like me who would prefer some theoretical writing aimed at the general radical reader rather than at an academically-ensconced audience.

After clearly describing Democracy and Nature as “a 160-page academic journal (formerly Society and Nature) which seeks to create a radical democratic synthesis of traditions of socialist (economic), political and ecological democracy, placing it on the borderline of anarchist theory shared with anti-state environmentalist, directly democratic and libertarian socialist posltions, “and going on to list themes of two issues, and titles of two major articles to give APR readers an idea of the journal’s specific content, I did conclude with one sentence mentioning that “Unfortunately, the journal is marred by the editor/ publisher’s insistence on getting in the first and last word on everything discussed in every issue.“I stand corrected that you are the editor and not the editor/publisher of the journal. However, the rest of my cautionary remark remains completely correct for the issues reviewed, as any reader of the journal will find for his or herself. The reason I mentioned that you insist on getting the “first and last word on everything discussed” is not because I oppose any desire for dialogue, but because that is what you do in a manner that becomes overkill for those reading the journal. When you criticize the articles in your introductory essay, then criticize them again in your remarks following them, and especially when you insist on publishing an unfinished draft version of an essay (against the author’s wishes that you publish the final version) so that you can then destroy it in detail in your response, I think you’ve reached a clear point of overkill in your criticism. Dialogue is one thing, but this is quite another.

At any rate, it seems that you mistake a simple criticism of your personal editing style as a criticism of the journal itself which was neither intended nor evident in my review. In no way “unscrupulously attack” your “attempt to express the journal’s political perspective,“ and your allegation that I have done so is one more suggestion that your journal might be better served by lightening up a little and taking yourself a little less seriously.

So please consider this dialogue my attempt to “amend the situation” with an explanation that no “shameful comments were made” in the review, only an honest evaluation.

Jason Mc Quinn

(The following text was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Alternative Press Review)

ABOUT ‘HONEST’ EVALUATIONS

London, 7 December 2001

I would like first to apologise for the delay in my reply to your comments which, however, was mainly due to the fact that nobody from APR informed me that my letter was going to be published in the Spring 2001 issue together with a reply by APR.

At the beginning of your letter you imply that there is no bias in the APR against theoretical journals. But this bias becomes all too obvious not just by the way you treat theoretical journals like D&N versus activist magazines but by your own response. When you characterize D&N as ‘an academically oriented theoretical journal with little relevance for radical political movements’ it is obvious that either you never understood the journal’s problematique or you pretend so in order to undermine its influence among activists because you disagree with the strategy proposed by it. If the building of an antisystemic political movement for an inclusive democracy is not ‘relevant for radical political movements’ I wonder what in your view is relevant. Perhaps, the life-style anarchism so aptly criticized by Murray Bookchin?

Furthermore, when the ‘trappings of academicism’, which you criticize, consist of the fact that ‘the majority of the contributors seem to clearly be academics, whether professors or students’ and that ‘the tones, styles and content of most essays included tends to be very academic and off-putting’ it is obvious that you have little idea of what a theoretical journal is supposed to do, i.e. to produce theory something that, by necessity, has always been done in History by theoreticians with activist background, who mostly tend to be teachers and students, as they have the time and necessary background to do so. The fact that the libertarian ideological space is usually charged for the lack of theory is not irrelevant to the fact that in this political space (unlike the Marxist one) there is a tremendous scarcity of serious theoretical journals aiming at creating theory. D&N’s aspiration has always been to help in creating such a theory for our times and, as far as you are concerned, it seems that you did everything you could to undermine this effort!

I will ignore your (unprovoked) offensive comments against me (‘take yourself a little less seriously’ etc) and I shall concentrate instead on your practice of distorting the facts which, far from giving the impression of ‘an honest evaluation’ of the journal, border very close to dishonesty. You write: ‘The reason I mentioned that you insist on getting the “first and last word on everything discussed” is not because I oppose any desire for dialogue, but because that is what you do in a manner that becomes overkill for those reading the journal. When you criticize the articles in your introductory essay, then criticize them again in your remarks following them, and especially when you insist on publishing an unfinished draft version of an essay (against the author’s wishes that you publish the final version) so that you can then destroy it in detail in your response, I think you’ve reached a clear point of overkill in your criticism’.

I must confess that this is one of the most distorted and unethical comments I ever read in the libertarian or any other press. First, it is not true that I criticize the articles in the introductory essay and then again in ‘my remarks following them’. Articles are only assessed (in general terms) in the editorial so that , as I explained in my letter to you, the journal’s problematique with respect to the authors’ views (which may express any current of the broad Left) may be expressed—this is the difference between a political journal and an academic journal which does not have a political problematique of its own. Second, the articles are not assessed anywhere else in the journal again, apart from the exceptional cases in which, in the process of discussing alternative views in my contribution to a particular theme, I sometimes include views expressed in the journal itself and I provide a detailed assessment of all these alternative views so that the dialogue on important theoretical issues is promoted. Third, the authors have the right to reply to the editorial comments, and of course to any other comments in the journal concerning their views, using exactly the same amount of space I used in the first place. In fact, this is the main reason why a lively dialogue section has developed in the journal, unlike any other similar journal I am aware of (something that is being recognized even by well known libertarians whose views on irrationalism have been criticised by the journal-- although the relevant quote in my reply, curiously enough, was omitted by APR).

But, when you state that I ‘insist on publishing an unfinished draft of an essay (against the author’s wishes that (I) publish the final version) so that I can destroy it in my detail’ I could only describe this as utterly dishonest. And it is dishonest because you use only the ‘facts’ presented by the author concerned (John Clark) and not the facts recognised by the entire Editorial Board of the journal. As it was explained in the detailed description of the actual facts (vol 5 no 3, p 561) the only reason we published the draft version of Clark’s article (that was in fact the text of his talk given given at a social ecology gathering in Scotland) was because this was the text to which Murray Bookchin replied in a full article-response of his own and when we asked Murray to rewrite his text in accordance to the final draft of JC’s paper he refused to do so. As the essence of JC’s criticism against MB was the same in both drafts and we did not wish to publish a final draft without Murray’s reply, we did not have any other choice but to publish Murray’s essay, which was followed later, WHEN JC AGREED TO IT, with the draft version of his article. Needless to add that this was the only case in the journal’s history that, due to the above exceptional circumstances, we did not publish the final version of an article; still, you managed to give the impression that this is ‘normal’ practice by me!

I am really very sorry but if this is the way you understand ‘an honest evaluation’ I think that everybody has to be concerned about the new libertarian ‘ethics’ emerging in APR, which seem to be much worse than the bourgeois ethics we are supposed to fight against. I hope that APR’s claim that it fights for the development of dialogue will prevail and this reply will be published in the next issue of APR so that readers can have the freedom to make their own minds about the case.

Takis Fotopoulos
Democracy & Nature, Editor

(The following text was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Alternative Press Review)

NOT BIASED, BUT SKEPTICAL

Editors Note. Alternative Press Review is committed to reviewing as many alternative periodicals as we are able in ways which can help our readers assess the many many choices of non-mainstream literature available in order to determine what will be most worth further investigation. In order to accomplish this we attempt to be as honest, accurate and pertinent as possible in the relatively short reviews that we have the space to publish. This means that we don’t pull punches when we describe publications and that our evaluations won’t always agree with the self-descriptions provided by editors like you - who too often believe that the periodicals they publish are somethuig quite diferent than they appear to general readers.

You are upset because you believe that as a reviewer l am biased against theoretical journals anti prefer activist periodicals. However the truth is that for several reasons l am actually just sceptical aboutac ademically-onented radical journals and have no necessary preference for acrivist over theoretical periodical orientations perse. Problems with academically-onented publications include a tendency to adopt overly specialized vocabularies meant to mystify and exclude the uninitiated (who will always be the vast majonty ofAPR readers) and a tendency to approach social problems from the perspective (and thus reflect the interests) of the relatively privileged stratum of academic intellectuals (rather than from the perspective of those most consistently dominated and exploited by the current political and economic regime). The skepticism with which I read academically-oriented periodicals obviously irks you immensely, but it might be worthwhile to consider the criticisms above before imagining that I “have little idea what a theoretical journal is supposed to do.” Obviously there is a broad range of theoretical journaLs. And only a very few theoretical journals will ever be very useful for the vast majority of people.

Most theoretical journals (and especially most of the academically-ortented theoretical journals) uncritically jusrify and reinforce the values and interests of the current political and economic elites. And unfortunately this remains the case even with most altermative journals, although some prefer to justify the values and interests of a would-be new class of elites instead (whether they be a new class of democratic, green, or socialist elites). At best, even in would-be radical journals which retain an academic orientation, any genuine libertarian radicalism in content is most often severely watered down to avoid causing problems for authors’ institutional status and careers. To understand how pervasive the pressures are which domesticate academically-oriented journals it should suffice to consider how many professors have been willing to callfor violent social revolution in such journals in recent rnemory?Can’t think of any? This certainly isn’t because there are no valid reasons to call for such a revolution! Nor it is certain that there aren’t at least a few professors our there who understand an ultimate need for social revolutionary violence but are afraid to say so.

The libertanan milieu may be somewhat lacking in theoretical journals, but any genuinely serious, uncompromising journals tend to publish more non academic theorists (who have no institutional stalus to protect), the kind of theorists who tend to be invisible in academically-oriented journals precisely because they relatively unafraid to bnng their arguments to their logical, undeniably “extreme” (from the perspective of the hegemonic mainstream) conclusions.

The academic orientation oj Democracy and Nature is thus very important to convey to readers of Alternative Press Review if a rewew is going to be honest, accurate and pertinent. And I certainly think it relevant to mention the editing overkill in the issues to whose review in APR you object, although I never intended to imply that all issues are the same. Your explanation for your demand to publish John Clark’s draft rather than his final version-because you had already prematurely published Murray Bookchin ‘s response to the draft won’t make sense to anyone except Bookchrn and his acolytes. (Anyone else will only wonder why Bookchin couldn’t respond to Clark’s essay after it was finished and why you pander to Bookchin’s ovewrought demands.) l have reviewed several issues of Democracy and Nature now, and I can’t help but notice that you had no problems with the first review’s charactenzation of Society and Nature (the journal’s onginal title) as an “academic-style Journal’. In fact I recall seeing one sentence from my first review ( “For anyone interested in the most sophisticated of the green theorists, this is the place to be”) being used repeatedly to promote the journal. APR readers are once again encouraged to read the original reviews of D&N to see for yourselves if there is any truth in the allegations above.

Jason Mc Quinn

(The following text was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Alternative Press Review)

DEMOCRACY & NATURE:

The international Journal of Inclusive Democracy

is a 120-page academic journal (formerly Society and Nature) which seeks to create a radically democratic synthesis of traditions of socialist (economic), poltical and ecologicaI democracy, placing it on the borderline of anarchist theory shared with anti-state environmentalist, directly democratic and libertarian socialist positions The November 2001 issue is one of the best yet in delineating exactly what the “Inclusive Democracy” project of editor Takis Foutopoulos is supposed to entail in actual practice. It includes Chamsy Ojeili’s good overview of place of intellectuals in would-be anti-capitalist revolutionary movements (Marxist, libertarian socialist & anarchist) concluding that intellectuals must seek an ‘advance without authority.” And Takis Fotopoulos contributes his own analysis of ‘The End of Traditional Anti-systemic Movements and the Need for a New Type of Anti-systemic Movement Today” in which he concludes that the only valid way forward is one explicitly organized around his own academically-oriented form of democratic ideology.

(The following text has been sent to Alternative Press Review for publication)

Democracy & Nature and APR

This letter has been written as a sort of installment in the dialogue APR has had with Democracy & Nature up to now, through letters and reviews. However, my letter shall mainly focus on issues relevant to the latest review of D&N by APR, and I shall thus not deal with points like the fact that Jason McQuinn insists on considering credible John Clark’s claim that distributing a text to participants of a conference is under no circumstances tantamount to publicising it.

In his latest review of D&N Jason McQuinn contrasts, with an obvious element of irony, on the one hand ‘Ojeili’s good overview of place of intellectuals in would-be anti-capitalist revolutionary movements’ and on the other the presumably authoritarian analysis of Takis Fotopoulos ‘in which he [TF] concludes that the only valid way forward is one explicitly organized around his own academically-oriented form of democratic ideology ‘. The aim is clearly to denigrate the project for an Inclusive Democracy (the development of which is the main aim of D&N) and personally the editor (TF), given that this project is not an academically–oriented form of ideology but a synthesis of the experiences and theory of the movements that are described at the beginning of the review. Finally, Takis Fotopoulos has repeatedly mentioned that Inclusive Democracy is not an ‘objective’ path to liberation, i.e. other projects may come out which have similar goals, analysis and tactics and, in fact, in the latest issue (vol 8 no 1) explicitly states ‘I think that the proposed [ID] strategy is A realistic strategy on the way to a new society’ (p. 62). Still, according to Jason McQuinn’s ‘honest and accurate’ review, for Takis Fotopoulos the ID strategy is ‘the ONLY valid way forward’. Needless to add that it is everybody’s right to support the project s/he chooses to, as it is our right to reply when we see it getting distorted. Why am I using the word ‘distorted’? Let me take things from the start.

In a previous reply Jason McQuinn wrote that he considers D&N to be an academically-oriented journal and stated that he finds this non-inducive to radical social change because ‘the majority of the contributors seem to clearly be academics, whether professors or students’ and that ‘the tones, styles and content of most essays included tends to be very academic and off-putting’. However, in his last reply he went even further and called D&N an academic journal (something which is very different from an ‘academic-style journal’ that he used to use in the past, to no objection from us), and stated that such journals have ‘a tendency to approach social problems from the perspective (and thus reflect the interests) of the relatively privileged stratum of academic intellectuals (rather than from the perspective of those most consistently dominated and exploited by the current political and economic regime)’. Connecting all this talk on academic journals and the interests of the privileged with D&N is nothing else than a clear lie not only because many of the contributors (including the editor himself) are not active academics but also because the very promotion of an antisystemic project by the journal makes most academics reluctant to send contributions to it unless they themselves are supporters of Inclusive Democracy or other antisystemic projects. Furthermore, the Inclusive Democracy project is against all elites and dogmas, something which constitutes an additional reason why McQuinn’s remarks on academic journals are plainely irrelevant in D&N’s case.

Parenthetically, I note that I feel it is obvious to probably everyone apart from Jason McQuinn, that a journal can use an academic style (which is necessary for a theoretical journal) without being academic in the sense he describes but, as the content of many of the articles shows, clearly antisystemic. In other words, what Jason McQuinn is doing is more or less ignoring all of the articles on Inclusive Democracy (and others, too) which refer to the replacement of the current system of the market economy and representative ‘democracy’ by institutions of direct political democracy, economic democracy, democracy in the social realm and ecological democracy.

Jason McQuinn then goes on to distort the stand the Inclusive Democracy project has on radical social change (choosing ‘social revolution’ as his topic, and ignoring completely what might follow a revolution): ‘To understand how pervasive the pressures are which domesticate academically-oriented journals it should suffice to consider how many professors have been willing to call for violent social revolution in such journals in recent memory?Can’t think of any? This certainly isn’t because there are no valid reasons to call for such a revolution!’. D&N has repeatedly expressed its views on revolutionary violence and the ID project itself does not reject revolutionary violence, as long as it is based on self-defense, given that its strategy is not based on the take-over of power through a revolutionary explosion (which in History has always led to the creation of new elites) but on fighting the existing institutions and prefiguring the new ones within the context of an antisystemic movement.

In summary, this is the magical route taken up by Jason McQuinn:

First, he characterises a radical theoretical journal as an academically-oriented journal because professors and students contribute to it, and because he finds its vocabulary difficult (although in our ‘Notes for Contributors’ we have included a specific requirement of clear writing).

Second, he switches from the term ‘academically-oriented journal’ to the term ‘academic journal’.

Third, he discloses the fact that he does not like academic journals (which is now his favourite characterisation of D&N) because they approach social problems from the perspective of the privileged.

Fourth, he puts in a good word for one of the articles in D&N (making ‘sure’ he cannot be accused of bad intentions) and then proceeds with what I can reasonably assume constituted his aim all along: denigrating and distorting the Inclusive Democracy project.

In his last letter Jason McQuinn mentioned that he has now reviewed several issues of D&N, thus making clear that his distortions cannot be attributed to lack of knowledge or sloppy reading. Therefore, I would have to disagree with D&N’s editor who in a previous letter said that Jason McQuinn’s practice of misrepresentation borders ‘very close to dishonesty’. Since Jason McQuinn says that he knows what the project of Inclusive Democracy stands for and still insists on misrepresenting it, then I am afraid that Jason McQuinn’s tactics no longer border to dishonesty but are now dishonest, pure and simple.

Alexandros Gezerlis
Democracy & Nature, Assistant Editor