Our Aims
The collapse of state
socialism, in its forms of "actually existing socialism" in the East and
social democracy in the West, means that today the liberation discourse has
moved from socialism to democracy. However, the usual discussion on
democracy involves various versions of what has been called "radical
democracy" —a term used by both postmodernists and supporters of the "civil
society" approach. The common characteristic of all these approaches to
democracy is that they all take for granted the present institutional
framework, as defined by the market economy and representative democracy,
and suggest various combinations of the market with forms of social/private
ownership of the means of production, as well as the ‘democratization’ of
the state in the sense of the enhancement of autonomous-from-the-state
social institutions and civil movements.
In D&N’s problematique, the
"radical democracy" conception, is both ahistorical and utopian in the
negative sense of the word. It is a-historical because it ignores the
structural changes, which have led to the internationalised market economy
and the consequent impotence of the civil societarian institutions (unions,
local economies, civil associations etc). It is utopian because, within the
present institutional framework of the market economy and representative
democracy, which postmodernists and civil societarians take for granted, the
enhancement of autonomous institutions is only possible to the extent that
it does not contravene the logic and dynamic of the internationalised market
economy and state power.
At the same time, it is now
obvious that the "new social movements" have failed to fulfil their
potential of offering a truly radical alternative to the status quo. Thus,
the mainstream element of the feminist and multicultural movements has
abandoned the original demands of those movements for a fundamental change
in the social, economic, and political structures and now only seeks a more
equitable piece of the pie. As they welcome their token integration into the
corridors of power within advanced capitalist society, they no longer
challenge institutional domination per se, or the hierarchical structures
which express the concentration of social, economic, and political power in
today's society.
The green movement, in particular, despite the growing ecological crisis,
has lost almost all of its radical potential. Part of it, especially in
Europe, has been integrated into the existing social system and is engaged
in expressing in the corridors of power the disquiet of the middle classes
about the deteriorating quality of life. Another part, especially in the
USA, has adopted either "idealist" or irrational and frequently mystical
approaches to the ecological problem, which are both compatible with the
reproduction of the existing social system and certainly inconsistent with
the project for democracy. Finally, some radical greens prefer a strategy of
lifestyle changes, building "communes", food co-ops etc., instead of a
direct challenge in the political and social arena. However, this approach,
although helpful in creating an alternative culture among small sections of
the population and, at the same time, morale-boosting for activists who wish
to see an immediate change in their lives, does not have any chance of
success ―in
the context of today's huge corporate concentration of power―
in building the
democratic majority needed for radical social change.
This journal's problematique is therefore differentiated from both the
postmodernist and the Habermasian "Left", as well as the mainstream Green
movement, since neither poses the question of basic social change, but both,
instead, take the existing system for granted, dreaming of radical
decentralisation of power in the former case, or in the latter, seeking
technological solutions to the ecological crisis. That is why this journal
differs radically from the usual "Left" and ecological journals which
concentrate on the symptoms of the multidimensional crisis rather than on
its systemic causes.
For us, democracy, which, properly defined, implies the abolition of the
unequal distribution of political, economic and social power, is not only
the political expression of a project with freedom as its aim, defined as
individual and collective autonomy. Democracy is also the only way out of
the present multidimensional crisis. This is so, because it is the
concentration of power in the hands of various elites that marks the
foundation of every aspect of this crisis. This concentration, in turn, can
be traced back to the establishment of the SYSTEM of the market economy and
the consequent growth economy, two centuries ago.
Thus, it is the concentration of economic power, as a result of commodity
relations and the grow-or-die dynamic of the market economy, which has led
to the present economic crisis. This crisis is expressed, mainly, by the
continuous expansion of inequality, the relentlessly growing gap not only
between the North and the South, but also between the economic elites and
the rest of society within the North and the South. The triumph of the
particular over the general interest, expressed by neoliberalism, is
inevitably followed by the aggravation of class, gender, ethnic, race, and
religious conflicts. Furthermore, with male and national chauvinism rampant,
women and minorities continue to be the first victims of the massive
unemployment induced by neoliberal capitalism.
It is also the concentration of economic power in the hands of economic
elites which fuels the social and cultural crisis, as expressed by the
parallel enhancement of the dialectic of violence, both personal and
collective, drug abuse, general social irresponsibility, as well as cultural
homogeneity. The growth economy has already created a growth society, the
main characteristics of which are consumerism, privacy, alienation and the
subsequent disintegration of social ties. The growth society, in turn,
inexorably leads toward a "non-society", that is, the substitution of
atomised families and individuals for society, a crucial step to the
completion of barbarism.
At the same time, the
concentration of political power in the hands of professional politicians
and various "experts" has transformed politics into statecraft, where, in
the context of the present neoliberal consensus, even the old ideological
differences between the Left and the Right have disappeared. Elections have
become beauty contests between "charismatic" leaders struggling to attract
the attention of the electorate in order to implement policies constituting
variations of the same theme: maximisation of the freedom of market forces
at the expense of both the welfare state, which is steadily undermined, and
the state's objective to secure full employment through the actual creation
of jobs, which is irrevocably abandoned. All this has resulted in a crisis
of traditional politics, as expressed by the growing reluctance of citizens
to participate in it, as members of political parties, voters etc.
Last, but not least, the
ecological crisis, as manifested by the rapid deterioration in the quality
of life, is the direct result of the continuing degradation of the
environment that the market economy and the consequent growth economy
promote. It is no accident that the destruction of the environment during
the lifetime of the growth economy, in both its capitalist and state
socialist versions, bears no comparison to the cumulative damage that
previous societies have inflicted on the environment. The fact that the main
form of power within the framework of the growth economy is economic power,
and that the concentration of economic power involves the ruling elites in a
constant struggle to dominate people and the natural world, could go a long
way toward explaining the present ecological crisis. In other words, to
understand the ecological crisis we should refer not simply to the
prevailing system of values and the resulting technologies (as the
environmentalists and the deep ecologists suggest) nor exclusively to the
capitalist production relations (as eco-marxists propose) but to the
relations of domination that characterise a hierarchical society based on
the system of market economy and the implied idea of dominating the natural
world.
In this context, humanity is
faced with a crucial choice between two radically different proposed
solutions, what we may call the "conventional environmentalist" and the
"eco-democratic". The former, defined here broadly as one seeking the causes
of the ecological crisis in the dominant system of values and the
technologies used, is pushed energetically by the capitalist system and
supported by the mainstream green movement. This solution therefore takes
for granted today's institutional framework of the market economy and
representative ‘democracy’ and naively presumes that a massive change in
values and technology (assumed -by those who are not antitechnological-to be
"neutral" with respect to the socio-economic system) is possible, if only we
could persuade people of the need for them. Alternatively, the
eco-democratic solution seeks the causes of the ecological crisis in a
social system that is based on institutionalised domination, not only
economic exploitation, of human by human, and the implied idea of trying to
dominate the natural world. It is obvious that this solution requires forms
of social organisation that are based on the equal distribution of political
and economic power.
Therefore, the ecological
dimension of the crisis, as well as all its other dimensions, bring us back
to the issue of democracy. This demands not just reviving of the tradition
of the Greek polis but transceding it as well. Thus, the public realm has to
be extended beyond the traditional political domain to the economic and
broader social domains so that the reintegration of society with the
economy, polity and Nature can be achieved. In this sense, democracy
should be seen as irreconcilable with any form of inequity in the
distribution of power, that is, with any concentration of power, political,
social or economic. Consequently, democracy is incompatible with commodity
and property relations, which inevitably lead to concentration of power.
Similarly, it is incompatible with hierarchical structures implying
domination, either institutionalised (e.g., domination of women by men), or
"objective" (e.g., domination of the South by the North in the framework of
the capitalist division of labour), and the implied notion of dominating the
natural world. Finally, democracy is fundamentally incompatible with any
closed system of beliefs, dogmas, or ideas. So, democracy, for us, has
nothing to do with the present dominant liberal conception of democracy, nor
with the various conceptions of the ideal society which are grounded on
religion, spiritualism, or irrational beliefs and dogmas.
All this amounts to a new
conception of confederal inclusive democracy, i.e. a confederation of demoi, namely, communities run on the basis of direct political
democracy, as well as economic democracy (beyond the confines of the market
economy and statist planning), democracy in the social realm and ecological
democracy This conception is derived from a synthesis of two major
historical traditions, namely the classical democratic and the socialist,
and it encompasses the contemporary movements for emancipation: the radical
green and feminist movements, as well as the indigenous and radical Third
World movements. Politics in this sense is not anymore a technique for
holding and exercising power but becomes again the self-management (in a
broad sense that includes the political, as well as the economic and broader
social domains) of society by its members.
Democracy & Nature
aims to become the international forum for this 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. This is facilitated by the fact that the very concept of
inclusive democracy is derived from a synthesis of the major radical
historical traditions. The journal will therefore function as a forum for
the interchange of ideas between libertarian socialists, social anarchists,
supporters of the autonomy/democratic project, social ecologists,
ecosocialists and other green "Left" movements, together with feminists and
activists in the land-based, indigenous and third world movements.
We continue this attempt with
neither any theoretical schemes founded on some closed rationalist systems
which assume the existence of "objective" truth in interpreting social
phenomena, nor any irrational ideologies (e.g. religion, spiritualism,
esoterism, New Age mysticism etc). In other words, we do not base the
democratic project on any "objective" or irrational truth but on our own
personal and responsible choice between coexisting tendencies and the
interpretation that our choice implies. However, this is not an arbitrary
choice or just another utopia. Inclusive democracy is not a utopia since not
only it is based on today’s reality, which is summed up by an unprecedented
crisis of the "growth economy", but it also expresses the discontent of
significant social sectors, their (explicit or implicit) contesting of
existing society and their manifest trends towards democratic forms of
organisation.
In the framework of the above
problematique the journal, in an effort to convert the dialogue promises
into action, has adopted the following policies:
-
Every effort will
be made in the selection of articles so that as many viewpoints as possible
within the broad left movement will be expressed.
-
A separate
dialogue section will publish comments/critiques of articles from previous
issues as long as they are of broad appeal, and
-
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.
(Please, see Notes for
Contributors for details about submissions).