[D66] The Paradox of Democratic Capitalism: An Interview with Rebecca Fisher

[R.O.]

http://moretht.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-paradox-of-democratic-capitalism.html

Thursday, 16 October 2014


      The Paradox of Democratic Capitalism: An Interview with Rebecca
      Fisher

“*It is impossible to separate political power from economic and social 
power. [The] false division [of both forms of power] has lead to the 
current distortion of democracy to mean only limited political freedoms 
existing within a deeply and inherently unequal society.” - Rebecca Fisher*


<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eaXot_JM4WI/VD_BZ3z_A_I/AAAAAAAAADA/JgJKBxHUerU/s1600/manage.jpg>

In this interview, Rebecca Fisher discusses some of the main ideas in 
her wonderful essay 'The Paradox of Democratic Capitalism: An Historical 
View'.

The essay was printed in the must-read Corporate Watch 
<http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/about-corporate-watch> book 
'Managing Democracy, Managing Dissent: Capitalism, Democracy and the 
Organisation of Consent' (2013, edited by Rebecca Fisher), which can be 
downloaded for free from here 
<http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/2014/managing-democracy-managing-dissent>, 
or bought for the bargain price of £10 here 
<http://corporatewatchshop.org/node/38>.


/A free PDF of this interview is available to download from here 
<https://archive.org/details/RFisherINT>. /



*(1) What kind of a democracy exists in most advanced capitalist 
countries today? Is this kind of democracy genuinely democratic?*

The kind of democracy that exists in the most advanced capitalist 
countries doesn't really constitute a democracy, in the original sense 
of the word. It certainly doesn't allow for public participation in 
decision-making, since this might threaten corporate, capitalist 
interests. Instead, it allows a very limited degree of public 
participation, since most people are permitted to vote. Various 
structures and processes are in place to ensure that this is extremely 
ineffectual in terms of influencing what actually happens.


Firstly, we only get to vote once every 4 to 5 years nationally.

Secondly, the choices put to us are severely limited – all the available 
political parties are pretty homogeneous - no political party is likely 
to get the funding or the establishment support if they presented a 
radically different alternative.

Thirdly, important decisions, structural decisions, are made by 
corporations, institutions and elites in the interests of capital, often 
tightly insulated from 'political' interference. And since these 
businesses exert such power, they also tend to exert power over 
politicians, almost always with more success than the public can.

Fourthly, the information about how the world operates, and what 
decisions are made, by whom and for whom, is strictly policed, via means 
of corporate and state manipulation and control of the media, and other 
knowledge producing systems. This means that certain myths and 
disinformations can exert remarkable power over public opinion; and 
opinions that run counter to the mainstream are portrayed as 
'illegitimate'.

The result is a 'democracy' in which the major decisions affecting the 
vast majority of the world's populations are made by a very small elite 
of individuals and transnational corporations, who prioritise the 
demands of capital accumulation above any human or environmental 
concerns. The main services provided by the so-called 'democratically' 
elected governments are therefore to create and maintain the conditions 
necessary for this continued economic expansion.

*(2) Are capitalism and democracy compatible?*

No – this is the crux of the issue. Genuine, participatory democracy and 
capitalism have entirely contradictory requirements and demands.

Capitalism requires constant expansion – i.e. perpetual economic growth 
– which is reliant upon the exploitation of labour – both paid and 
unpaid. It thus demands both coercion (to make people work in conditions 
which enable profit making) and inequality (as wealth and power 
concentrates in the hands of a few).

Whereas genuine, participatory democracy requires both universal freedom 
to participate in decision-making, and therefore socio-economic 
equality: for if everyone is free then everyone must also be equal since 
no-one will have power over them.

This goes to show how it is impossible to separate political power from 
economic and social power. This false division has lead to the current 
distortion of democracy to mean only limited political freedoms existing 
within a deeply and inherently unequal society.

This is liberal 'democracy' – which is considered democratic as long as 
procedural aspects – primarily voting – are followed, even in the 
absence of broader social and economic equality or freedoms.

This then is the paradox of democratic capitalism – capitalism cannot 
afford to guarantee democracy because it can't co-exist with the 
socio-economic equality that genuine democracy would entail, but yet 
today capitalism is commonly deemed to be democratic, despite the rigid 
limits placed upon this 'democracy'.

*(3) When did you first become aware of the paradox of democratic 
capitalism?*

I can't really remember when I was first made aware of it – but what 
really brought it home was my disillusionment with mainstream NGOs, for 
whom I worked briefly upon graduating. There I very quickly became 
disheartenend by the limits to their lobbying and despite their often 
very sound analysis of particular issues.

These limits seemed to stem from the lip-service paid to them by the 
government – for example inviting NGOs to lobby them on particular 
issues, or in organising safe, AtoB demonstrations.

Liberal governments are always keen to appear 'democratic' in these 
ways, yet they can rarely afford to accede to these demands, at least 
not the really substantial ones, since their loyalties are to 
transnational capital.

I found then that NGOs tended to limit their demands according to what 
they felt was 'achievable', i.e. to what they felt the government might 
relent on, particularly since they were competing for public support, 
which they felt depended on such 'successes'.

So the limitations of the NGOs' demands seemed to me to stem from the 
process of engagement with governments – from the unwritten but firm 
rules on what is permissible to advocate for, while still retaining 
their place at the table.

The interesting thing was that this 'place at the table' often then 
translated as credibility or legitimacy. Thus, within some circles – I 
don't mean all NGOs by any means – to speak of more radical politics 
might raise a snicker, or even a guffaw, since they were deemed so 
beyond the unspoken pale.

This notion of the limits of credibility seemed to me to be crucial – 
and also very difficult to explain or find the cause of, since the 
limits were unspoken yet widely understood. In short, it seemed to me 
very odd, not to say disappointing, that despite their patent and 
obvious difficulty in effecting any of the changes they were lobbying 
for, that this didn't lead them to question the entire system.

*(4) How is public consent for democratic capitalism organised? What 
happens when this consent is absent?*

This is a very complicated and multi-faceted process. It occurs 
throughout and across a wide range of arenas, and using various means. 
In the book 
<http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/2014/managing-democracy-managing-dissent> 
they are divided into three main categories: control of information, 
co-option and repression.

Control of information includes processes such as propaganda, language, 
the state/corporate media systems and entertainment industries. But we 
also could have included academia, education, the public relations 
industry, advertising, culture more generally, the family and many others.

The overriding point here is the sources we have at our disposal to 
learn about how the world functions, even how we humans function, how we 
understand ourselves even, is influenced, and sometimes even moulded, in 
ways which engender general public acceptance of the basic tenets of 
capitalism – and in this case, teaches us that capitalism is democratic 
and therefore, if you have any problem with it, which you surely will, 
it is amenable to change.

Even when the facts on the ground evidently show that capitalism creates 
and depends upon those problems. This is obviously a staggeringly 
difficult task – no wonder then that so much energy is invested in 
masking the incompatibility of democracy and capitalism.

But it is a task which is never and can never be wholly successful. 
People will always resist, and posit their own interpretations and 
actions for change. The wool can never be pulled completely over all of 
the people, all of the time.

When people do resist though, there are various means which help to 
ensure that such initiatives do not threaten the entire system. 
Co-option is the rather clumsy, all purpose word for this complex process.

Basically, it boils down to limiting political demands, and bringing 
their advocates into a sphere in which they will not be able to effect 
radical change. Then, they won't be able to threaten the system as a 
whole, but will believe that they are making a worthwhile difference, 
and so refrain from trying for more.

Sometimes this is done by isolating the issue, or the people at stake. 
And this can be where it gets tricky – because you can make a real 
difference to some people, or on a particular issue, without challenging 
the system. But the question here is how come people are so often unable 
to do both. How come direct support is very often divorced from the 
politics of fundamental change?

One other major way it can be achieved is by essentially bribing groups 
and organisations with funding, which is then, and often very subtly, 
made conditional on meeting particular, often political requirements.

Applying for funding also saps organisations' time and energy, as well 
as pitting groups against each other, which can encourage a culture of 
division and competition rather than cooperation and solidarity.

Crucially, it creates a culture of dependency on funding – once a group 
feels it can rely on funding it is very difficult to avoid creating 
structures which depend upon it. This means that if and when that 
funding dries up – or is denied due to the political nature of the work, 
or to funders' changing priorities etc – the group is no longer able to 
be as effective as it was before it received funding, because it is now 
set up to function with funding. It also means that it is more tempting 
to go through whatever hoops are required, including dilution of 
politics, to chase that funding.

Of course it is also always worth remembering where the money is coming 
from and why it is coming. What are the funding organisations getting 
from funding a radical group – is it window dressing? Or subversion? 
Generally, wealth and power is not interested in redistributing that 
wealth and power so it is essential to be vigilant.
With resistance which remains radical and aimed at systemic change, and 
with the potential to really disrupt the system however, repression is 
often the only option for those in power. The crucial thing here is how 
this is squared, or attempted to be squared, with the myth that 
capitalism is democratic.

It comes down to ideological hegemony. What I mean by this is that there 
are firm limits on what is 'permissible' to say while remaining credible 
and 'mainstream'. One of these red lines is drawn along the belief that 
capitalism is or can be democratic – going against this norm – this 
'common-sense' - often elicits ridicule, incomprehension, even disgust 
in modern, capitalist societies.

When these 'heretical' opinions are translated into actions which oppose 
capitalist interests – for instance an anti-capitalist protest which 
threatens to disrupt some element of the operations of capitalism – 
their supposed illegitimacy is used to justify the repression they 
receive. While this shows the role of the state to protect corporate, 
capitalist interests, it does so while proclaiming to protect the public 
and society.

This is because it seen as beyond the pale to question the supposed 
union between public and corporate interests. For a capitalist 
democracy, the two are equated with one another - economic growth is for 
the public good - and therefore to threaten one is to counter the other, 
to be anti-democratic, violent, anti-social etc.

This is the point about made forcefully by Dave Whyte in the book 
<http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/2014/managing-democracy-managing-dissent> 
– the union between the 'interests of the market' (as if personified) 
and the public. He termed this process 'market patriotism' i.e. how we 
are expected to see economic growth as a good, in and of itself, not 
because of what it will apparently provide us.

*(5) How is democratic capitalism able to present itself as genuinely 
democratic?*
Largely through the fact of having elections, no matter how 
stage-managed and controlled they are. In addition, by ensuring that 
some – albeit a carefully selected group – of organisations, NGOs and 
campaign groups can pressure these 'democratically-elected' politicians 
on a carefully selected collection of non-systemic issues – e.g. through 
carefully managed demonstrations and lobbying, petitions etc. Thus 
'democratic' capitalism can say it allows for freedom to dissent.

There is of course also the much-vaulted freedom of the press – but as 
the book shows this freedom is curtailed by corporate and/or state 
ownership of media outlets and ideological hegemony – that is by the 
tacit agreement to remain within particular parameters of 'legitimate', 
'common-sense' discourse.

This translates into a mainstream media which largely refuses to ask the 
fundamental questions about capitalism, and the kind of democracy we 
have, and in which more radical views which overstep those parameters 
are mostly marginalised or silenced.

So in this way democratic capitalism can claim to have the procedural 
elements of a democracy – elections, freedom to protest, freedom of 
expression – even though none of these translate into popular 
participation in decision-making.

*(6) When did liberal democracy first emerge, and why?*

I argue in the book 
<http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/2014/managing-democracy-managing-dissent> 
that liberal democracy emerged out of the contradictions of capitalism – 
that in fact the evolution of the two systems is interconnected.

Capitalism emerged as a way to continue the extraction of capital in 
face of the stagnating feudal economy, and rising labour power which 
demanded higher wages and improved conditions. Liberal democracy emerged 
as a way to ensure sufficient acquiescence to that exploitative system.

The real problem of social control arose since capitalism could not 
comfortably co-exist with the legitimating ideology of the feudal social 
order – i.e. the divine social order, in which everyone was born with a 
specific position in society. This did not allow the emerging merchant 
classes to begin new ventures to expand capital accumulation.

So instead, the Enlightenment period saw the evolution of the social 
contract – and liberalism – under which all citizens were supposedly 
born free and equal. This freed up those merchants. However, leaving 
aside for a moment the millions of non-citizens in Europe and around the 
world who were brutally subjugated, this new freedom could hardly 
encompass the majority of citizens in the Enlightenment centres. Liberal 
democracy became the formal political mechanism behind this new doctrine 
of liberalism.

However its freedoms – including voting – were strictly limited to only 
the wealthiest men. Those who had little to gain from capitalism – such 
women, and the workers – were deemed to be too much of a threat to the 
system, out of which they did so badly, to be given the vote.

Suffrage was granted in increments – following popular struggles, and 
only to those whose material and political integration into the 
capitalist system rendered them relatively unlikely to pressure for 
systemic change (crucially via the enrichment of the growing middle 
class through imperialism).

Eventually, in countries in the centre this could be expanded to near 
universal suffrage, though of course only in conjunction with other 
mechanisms of social control.

*(7) What are some of the other mechanisms capitalism uses to contain 
the social discontent and rebellion that it produces, besides the 
mechanism of liberal democracy?*

Overt force is ever present of course - repression at protests, 
detention of migrants, the penal system, military invasions etc. Other 
coercive mechanisms can be more subtle – such as debt or financial 
conditionality imposed by institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.

Another important mechanism is the constant pressure to consume – being 
taught to believe that what we have is never enough – we must keep up 
with the changing fashions, trends, and gizmos. This both keeps us 
buying things, a protection against over-production. and identifying in 
our purchases, less than in our selves and our relationships, so that we 
have less time and motivation for political activity, and more 
inclination to believe in the corporation – and by extension capitalism 
- as a moral force for good.

Education of course is another important mechanism of social control – 
one which we often forget. It is interesting to note that when universal 
education was first enforced in certain American states it was fiercely 
resisted – by the communities who were fearful of the state 
indoctrinating their children, and protective of their rights to bring 
them up as they wished.

*(8) Is liberal democracy currently undergoing a crisis of legitimacy? 
What about capitalism?*

I'm not sure. I mean I don't know precisely what level of protest or 
opposition constitutes a crisis of legitimacy? It feels slightly 
ludicrous to make this kind of pronouncement. What I do think is 
important though is to have a sense of crises which isn't strictly 
linear or clear cut. What I mean is that while it appears now as though 
the capitalist and liberal democratic systems are more stable than a few 
years ago,( when the shock of the financial crisis was at its peak), 
this doesn't mean all is rosy now.

The bottom line is that the system of democratic capitalism is and 
always will be precarious – so dependent is it on a contradiction and a 
lie. Moreover, the planetary limits, if not the human ones, will at some 
point have to put pay to constant capitalist expansion, though it might 
do so in the form of an ecological collapse.

To avoid this, we must insist on the incompatibility of democracy and 
capitalism – and on the need to build the former at the expense of the 
latter. Both liberal democracy and capitalism are remarkably resilient – 
so this will be no easy task.

*(9) What kind of a relationship do imperialism and democracy have?*

Quite a complicated one. Initially, liberal democracy was reserved for 
the centre, imperialising countries, since it was only there in which 
certain sections of the population were sufficiently integrated into the 
capitalist system to be trusted with its rewards – I.e varying degrees 
of political power.

The European colonial powers ruled their colonies via a combination of 
brutal force and co-option of existing power structures. Until forced, 
by decolonisation, there was never much thought of imposing democracy on 
them. The US version of imperialism differed however – based on more 
indirect power, rather than direct colonialism, the US usually began 
their imperial missions with a rhetoric of bringing democracy to the 
unenlightened masses who needed their tutelage.

This is now the model used to justify most imperial ventures – since 
direct colonialism is no longer tenable following de-colonial wars. But 
obviously there remains a tension between imperialism and the control it 
requires – since democracy which supposedly implies the country in 
question's independence. How this tension is managed varies – but often 
it is done using the same 'tutelage' model.

For example, post-invasion Iraq apparently needed external intervention 
and reconstruction to become democratic. And of course before that they 
needed a violent, military invasion, and now the violence is being 
escalated once again.
Other tensions are created in the decidedly non-democratic regimes which 
are supported and propped up because they are useful – for instance in 
supplying access to oil fields and/or military bases – for the 
capitalistic system, with the US at the helm.

These tensions correspond closely to the tension inherent in the 
incompatibility between capitalism and democracy: democracy must be 
curtailed and managed – it certainly cannot be left to the people to run 
- at least not until those people have been selected and taught how to 
be 'democratic', crucially via 'democracy promotion' programmes.

*(10) What is 'democracy promotion'? Why was it created?*

So 'democracy promotion' is the term given to overt methods of political 
intervention which effect indirect imperialism. So what used to be, and 
often still is, attempted via invasions, establishing client regimes and 
the co-option of elites is now also attempted via training civil society 
formations in the formal, procedural mechanics of liberal democracy.

The aim behind this essentially co-option of civil society, and by 
extension hopefully public opinion, is to ensure that political 
resistance is channelled into forms which remain compatible with 
transnational capitalism. It functions as a way for governments 
(primarily the US but also the British, Canadian, Australian, German 
governments) to intervene and try to mould the political formations 
emerging in areas where the rule of neoliberal capitalism is not yet 
firmly established or entirely stable.

The 'democracy' being promoted is very like the liberal democracy we 
have been discussing – in that it limits participation to voting between 
largely similar parties, largely aligned with the demands of neoliberal 
capitalism, and in which 'legitimate' public discourse usually refrains 
from voicing these limitations. While of course claiming to engender a 
free, open and inclusive political system.

In short it comprises of the attempts to construct political structures 
which organise popular consent for transnational, neoliberal capitalism, 
protecting it from political instability. It includes training for 
political parties, NGOs, churches, trades unions, social movements. 
Democracy promotion has proved extremely effective in suppressing more 
organic, autonomous and liberatory popular politics, and containing 
resistance to the capitalist system, often in places where the placatory 
'rewards' of that system are thinly distributed.

Of course, imperialist political intervention and manipulation is 
nothing new. The important change signified by this trend towards using 
'democracy promotion' is that its aims are very similar to more direct 
forms of political intervention such as colonialism, invasions, covert 
missions, or coup d'etats. Instead of imposing political structures 
'from above', this more sophisticated technique moulds them 'from 
below'. And being conducted in the name of 'democracy' ensures that they 
do not court the same controversy as the previous covert manipulations.

*(11) Do you agree with David Cromwell that the “notion that we live in 
a proper democracy is a dangerous illusion” 
<http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/747-launchpad-for-a-revolution-russell-brand-the-bbc-and-elite-power.html>?*

Yes, this is the main crux of the book 
<http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/2014/managing-democracy-managing-dissent> 
in fact. That this belief that capitalism is or can be democratic is key 
to sustaining the current system, and causing such suffering and 
ecological devastation.

Not only are wars justified in its name, but it is a key reason why 
there exists such general popular consent for capitalism. It operates 
like a valve, out of which resistance and anger can be released, without 
much substantial political effect.

Without it there would be more of a risk that the anger would boil over 
and threaten capitalist operations – that people would refuse to consent 
or co-operate. As it is, the belief that we can intervene in the 
political decisions made by political elites and corporations is an 
important reason why we don't rebel against the system in bigger 
numbers, why it's hard to organise for this.

*(12) Do you think that voting is pointless?*

Yes, sort of. But really it's about being aware of what purpose it 
serves, and what you may get out of it. The danger comes when you 
believe, or imply, that the liberal democratic system could, eventually, 
produce a system of rule that would be egalitarian and liberationary. I 
have very little time for arguments based upon 'effecting change from 
within' since it always seems like the forces against such change are 
more powerful than you, especially when you are so close, and so many 
compromises are required of you to remain so close, compromises which 
dilute and mutate your original political agenda.

The real issue is that engaging in the liberal democratic system 
involves accepting at least some of its founding principles, which were 
constructed in order to placate and contain political dissent, rather 
than give power to it – such as representation, elections, the 
separation of economic and political spheres.

Hence why it's important to try and understand the development of 
liberal democracy in tandem with capitalism – to understand how 
interconnected they are, and that to defeat capitalism we can't use 
liberal democracy.

*(13) What texts would you recommend to people interested in learning 
more about the paradox of democratic capitalism?*

*I must give special mention to the book that inspired my work in this 
area: William I. Robinson's **/Promoting Polyarchy/**(1996). This goes 
into both factual detail and theoretical depth into the nature, 
development and expansion of the 'managed democracy' – which he calls 
polyarchy. Robinson has also written more recent and shorter articles on 
this subject, some of which are available for free on his website:*
**_http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robinson/_**

*For a particularly insightful take on the historical development of 
capitalism (and especially its relationship with sexism and patriarchy) 
I'd strongly recommend Silvia Federici's **/Caliban and the Witch/**, 
which can be downloaded for free here: 
*_https://libcom.org/library/caliban-witch-silvia-federici_*. *

*And of course the book 
<http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/2014/managing-democracy-managing-dissent>'s 
analysis is heavily indebted to the analysis of the mainstream media by 
Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, in their seminal **/Manufacturing 
Consent/**. For more contemporary and UK-based analysis of the media I'd 
recommend anything written by MediaLens <http://www.medialens.org/>. *

*And then for those wishing to know more theoretical underpinnings of 
hegemony and consent of course there's Antonio Gramsci – upon whose 
thinking so much of the book is based.*

*(14) What is Corporate Watch?*

Corporate Watch is a independent research co-operative, based in London, 
that *investigates the social and environmental impacts of corporations 
and corporate power. Since 1996 we have been publishing articles, 
briefings and occasionally books, based on various themes, including 
migration, Palestine, climate change and privatisation, as well as 
analysing some of the structural forces which grant corporations such 
power. Last year I edited 'Managing Democracy, Managing Dissent', which, 
like all our publications, can be downloaded for free online – see: *
_http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/2014/managing-democracy-managing-dissent_*. 
It is also available to buy for £10 from our shop - 
*_http://corporatewatchshop.org/_**

*And forgive the appeal, but Corporate Watch needs our readers' support 
to keep going – please donate if you can: 
*_http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/support-corporate-watch_.*Regular 
donors of more than £5 a month will receive all our publications for 
free as they come out! *



*/This interview was conducted by Richard Capes for the site 'More 
Thought' <http://moretht.blogspot.com/> /*/and completed on 15th October 
2014./

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tuxtown.net/pipermail/d66/attachments/20200818/381585d4/attachment-0001.html>