Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Neoliberalism vs. Democracy (was Re: Hi, Im back)

Expand Messages
  • Guy Berliner
    You really should have a look at Eric Britton s World Carfree Day website, www.carfreeday.com. I think it helps unravel the mystery of how societies might go
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 8, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      You really should have a look at Eric Britton's World Carfree
      Day website, www.carfreeday.com. I think it helps unravel the
      mystery of how societies might go about changing such phenomena
      as excessive auto dependency, bad urban planning, and the rest.

      The worst abuse of the prevailing neoliberal ideology that social
      elites in so many places have attempted to propagate universally is a
      certain ahistoricity and social idiocy. Margaret Thatcher encapsulated
      all of this in one famous phrase, TINA--There Is No Alternative. "Society,"
      Lady Thatcher said, "does not exist." There are, she explained, only
      isolated, atomized individuals and their families, each seeking their
      individual bliss in the great marketplace of reality. But in truth, she
      lied. Society is more than a random collection of isolated individuals,
      and there are many alternatives. Indeed, such a society as she promoted
      is by nature idiotic -- how can you have a society of unrelated
      individuals, when that confounds the whole meaning of the term?

      To attempt to break down all the rich and multifaceted interactions of
      human beings in real societies to one-dimensional "market" relations
      leads to all the pathologies we are witnessing today under "advanced"
      capitalism. And it is, of course, profoundly antidemocratic, as one
      cannot, by definition, have a democracy without an engaged citizenry
      that actually rises to the challenge of taking charge of its own
      destiny. When one acts as a citizen in a democracy, one is engaged in
      shaping the future of society as a whole, and not just one's private
      bliss as in "the market." Thus, one must be mindful of the good of
      one's fellow citizens, and not just one's own. How can such a thing
      come to pass? Naturally, through democratic deliberations, which
      obviously must involve the whole community together. There can be
      no question of imposing decisions from on high.

      Today, under the tyranny of "the marketplace," our democracy in my
      country has reached its lowest ebb yet. Rarely more than half of
      my fellow citizens even bother to vote. And almost nowhere is there
      the sort of direct citizens' deliberative process that characterizes
      real democracy. Our "democracy" today is structured more like a
      multinational corporation -- with an occasionally elected board of
      directors, and shareholders, who mainly concern themselves with no
      details of the "company" (country) save the value of their stock.

      Let's consider briefly how all this applies to the "car problem."
      In truth, motorism is a classic case of the "prisoner's dilemma"
      discussed in games theory. The prototypical "prisoner's dilemma"
      is: there are two prisoners, isolated from each other. They are
      faced with the following options by their jailers: Let one inform
      against the other during interrogation, and the other stay silent.
      Then the informer will go free, and the silent one will receive
      20 years. Let both inform on each other, and both will receive 10
      years. But if both stay silent, both go free in only six months.
      It's clear what the prisoners should do if they could communicate
      with each other. But if, isolated from each other, each merely follows
      the laws of the "market," acting as the rational capitalist
      "homo economicus" of economic theory and attempting to maximize his
      own self-interest, both will receive long sentences.

      In a democracy, the "prisoner's dilemma" is avoided altogether
      through democratic deliberations in which the participants have a
      dialogue with each other, with a view towards serving the benefit
      of the group as a whole, and not just the personal aggrandizement
      of individuals within it. This cannot happen in a society that is
      guided by a monomaniacal obsession with "market" decision making.
      In such a real citizen's deliberative decisionmaking process,
      the same previously isolated individuals will assuredly make much
      different decisions than they made isolated unto themselves in
      "the market," having now to take into account the wellbeing,
      hopes, and aspirations of others than just themselves. In such a
      real democracy, we would surely choose modes of transportation that
      did not impose such a high cost on the non-motorized, on the natural
      world, and on our own human environment. We would surely attempt to
      construct transportation systems that were inclusionary and not
      exclusionary, affordable and not just for the rich, etc.

      Consider, for example: I know Sierra Club activists here in San
      Diego who say, "I sure would like to ride a bike instead of driving,
      but, with all that pollution, I'm afraid it would hurt my lungs."
      So they contribute to the problem by driving some more themselves.
      Wouldn't it be much better if they could get with their fellow
      citizens to reduce the problem for everyone? Another word for this
      situation is "the tragedy of the commons." Everyone is disserved
      by this state of affairs, but the marginal cost of just one individual,
      isolated from his fellows, attempting to do something about it, is
      perceived as higher by that individual than the share of the burden
      he suffers by contributing to the problem himself. The solution
      should be clear by now. But it is nowhere to be found in Margaret
      Thatcher's lexicon.

      Guy Berliner

      Mateus de Oliveira Fechino wrote:

      >
      >Should we make it a law that no car is no longer allowed in this
      >world of ours ( which I think is not Joel's idea at all ) ? Well, if
      >we could do that...anyone has got an idea of how ?
      >
      >Look Guy, in a society I believe we all struggle to live together in
      >harmony , right? Think about car drivers: wouldnt it be better if
      >they could wipe out all pedestrians and all other car traffic from
      >the streets , the same way pedestrians want to get rid of all cars ?
      >Thats social life, right ? You really cant get all you want.Thats my
      >opinion.
      >
      >Mateus Fechino
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.