DEMOCRACY & NATURE:
The International Journal of INCLUSIVE
DEMOCRACY
vol.7, no.3, (November 2001)
Editorial
The discussion on irrationalism and postmodernism that was initiated by vol 4
no 2/3 and vol 7 no 1, is further developed in this issue so that the influence
of what are arguably the two main ideological currents today can be discussed in
relation to the present radical movements. This is a particularly crucial issue
in the present era of neoliberal modernity and globalisation when the old values
of socialist statism have collapsed along with it and, at the same time, the
main tenets of irrationalism and particularly postmodernism seem to be
insidiously invading the radical movements, leading to their effective
neutralisation—if not destruction, as
in
the case of antisystemic movements.
Chamsy Ojeili’s insightful paper discusses the crucial issue
of the role and future of
Left intellectuals, political organisation, and theory in the aftermath of the
collapse of socialist statism and the inevitable discrediting of its
vanguardism, elitism, scientism, and substitutionism. He persuasively shows that
postmodernism is not a coherent emancipatory alternative, as a result of its
extreme relativism and—even more important—its rejection of universalism.
Instead, the author argues, it is within what he calls the broad libertarian
socialist tradition, (i.e. the clearly anti-systemic tradition which rejects the
system of the market economy and statism
itself
rather than simply its malfunctioning) --as it is expressed today by the
autonomy/inclusive democracy projects-- that a real emancipatory alternative can
be found. Such an alternative also offers a way of answering questions about
intellectuals and political organisation that is more fruitful than the one
offered by postmodernism.
The aim of my contribution (Takis Fotopoulos) is to examine the
systemic parameters which gave rise to the flourishing of antisystemic movements
in the 19th and 20th centuries and their subsequent
decline in the era of neoliberal modernity. It is shown that their recent
decline is not irrelevant to the nature of the traditional antisystemic movement
which challenged a particular form of power rather than power itself, as a
result of the one-dimensional conception about the ‘system’ adopted by these
movements which typically saw one form of power as the basis of all other forms
of power. It is argued that today the issue is not anymore to challenge one form
of power or another but to
challenge power itself, which constitutes the basis of heteronomy. The
conclusion derived from this analysis is that a new type of antisystemic
movement is needed today which should challenge heteronomy itself, rather than
simply various forms of heteronomy. The antiglobalisation ‘movement’, which
is seen as a continuation of the democratic movement that began in the 1960s,
has the potential to develop into such a movement provided that it starts
building bases at the local level with the aim to create a new democratic
globalisation based on local inclusive democracies that would reintegrate
society with the economy, polity and Nature, in an institutional framework of
equal distribution of power in all its forms.
Manos Marangudakis’ article examines the
influence of the presently resurgent irrationalism on the environmental
movements with particular reference to the case of the Green activist movement
Earth First! In the course of
his interesting analysis he attempts to show
that
in this case irrationalism becomes unbounded as it does not simply secure
instrumental action but guides it altogether. As the author puts it ‘the
motivation behind the Earth First! social movement could be arguably described
as a kind of religious revelation, which, in the eyes of
the members of the movement, is supposed to lead to a meaningful and in
all respects, true life’. However, one may disagree with the author’s
conclusion that what is wrong with environmental movements like Earth First! is
not irrationalism in general (which, in the form of religious irrationalism, is
seen sympathetically by the author) but the particular form of ‘unbounded’
ideological irrationalism characterising ecocentric movements that leads them to
an uncompromising attitude which is an obstacle to wider alliances. One may
argue instead that the only guarantee that environmental movements would not end
up as a kind of ecofascist movements is that their praxis should be completely
separated from any kind of irrationalism and be embedded exclusively on a
democratic rationalism.
Finally,
Alexandros Gezerlis’ bright
analysis of the Castoriadian work, with particular reference to his
chef-d’oeuvre The Imaginary Institution of Society, persuasively shows the
kind of distortion attempted today by the academic Left, which, in various
conferences, articles and so on, attempts to classify him among the
postmodernist intellectuals (that Castoriadis himself so much despised!). The
author, far from idolising the work of this great thinker who together with
Murray Bookchin played a crucial role in the new synthesis expressed by the
inclusive democracy project, critically assesses Castoriadis’ important
contribution to liberatory thought, as well as the weak elements in his thinking
which obviously constitute a challenge to those who are influenced by his
work.
Takis Fotopoulos,
Editor