{"id":8457,"date":"2009-10-20T00:42:49","date_gmt":"2009-10-19T14:42:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/slackbastard.anarchobase.com\/?p=8457"},"modified":"2009-10-20T01:17:02","modified_gmt":"2009-10-19T15:17:02","slug":"a-dose-of-libertarianism-would-enhance-our-democracy-and-if-my-aunt-had-balls-shed-be-my-uncle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/slackbastard.anarchobase.com\/?p=8457","title":{"rendered":"“A dose of libertarianism would enhance our democracy” — and if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle."},"content":{"rendered":"

From the Department of Talking With The Taxman About Poetry<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

A dose of libertarianism would enhance our democracy<\/a>
\nTony Moore
\nThe Australian<\/em>
\nOctober 5, 2009<\/p>\n

Social democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n

In theory (according to Tony): “Social democracy ensures collective intervention in the marketplace to enhance structural equality and advance the full development of our potential as human beings”. In practice, social democracy is as social democracy does.<\/p>\n

Libertarianism<\/strong><\/p>\n

As for ‘libertarianism’, while its contemporary adherents may well “cultivate a sceptical attitude” to the state, its roots are in anarchism, and the amplification of that bad attit00d into a political philosophy seeking the overthrow or dismantling of ‘the state’<\/a>.<\/p>\n

On the origins of the term ‘libertarian’, see<\/em> ‘150 years of Libertarian’<\/a>, Anarchist Writers, December 11, 2008. On the origins of ‘social democracy’, see<\/em>, ‘Radicals, Exiles and Socialist Beginnings’<\/a>, Chapter 1, The Slow Burning Fuse: The lost history of the British Anarchists<\/em>, John Quail (Paladin Books, London, 1978):<\/p>\n

…One measure of the differences between the [Manhood Suffrage League, est.1875] and its predecessor [Democratic and Trades Alliance Association, est. 1874], however, lies in the more positive attitude to the Paris Commune which caused the League to come into being. Fairly advanced Radicals like Bradlaugh, for example, baulked at the ‘unconstitutional’ nature of the Commune. He was reported as saying in a speech that ‘The Commune asked for the recognition and consolidation of the Republic. But he denied their right to do it by force of arms ( … ).’ Radicals might be sickened at the slaughter – some 30,000 people were massacred when the Commune was crushed – but for them the Commune was not a heroic beginning of a new world. The Manhood Suffrage League thought differently. Kitz writes: ‘Freed from obstruction and opposition, we cordially cooperated with our foreign comrades in holding an international meeting at the Cleveland Hall to celebrate the Commune. It was a most enthusiastic demonstration and marked the beginning of the revival’ [i.e. of socialism]. A large number of English working men attended. But whether because of the incomplete commitment to revolution of the League or the pressure of new ventures, by 1877 Kitz was no longer secretary of the Manhood Suffrage League. He mentions no particular break in his memoirs, so it is likely that he retained a connection with it that gradually atrophied over the years. Certainly by 1877 Kitz was working for the formation of a specifically socialist, revolutionary and internationalist movement in London. The international element was important. As he says ‘the socialist movement in England owes its origins largely to the propagandist zeal of foreign workmen’. More specifically, they were German exiles. Kitz spoke fluent German and was in close contact with them. The Social Democratic Party was growing in Germany and was an increasingly influential example internationally. It should not be assumed, however, that ‘social democracy’ meant then what it means now. Kitz was committed to revolutionary rather than electoral action and by his<\/em> use of the phrase he clearly meant a revolutionary democratic socialism. The distinction was between a total social<\/em> democracy and a partial political<\/em> democracy. At that time ‘social democracy’ was not reducible to parliamentary reformism.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See also<\/em> : The Radical Tradition: A Study in Modern Revolutionary Thought<\/a><\/em>, Richard Gombin (1979). On The Paris Commune, see<\/em> : ‘Peter Kropotkin and People\u2019s Uprisings: From the Paris Commune to Gwangju’, George Katsiaficas, 2002 (PDF<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Orstralian social democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Australia in 2009, however, ‘social democracy’ — despite various rhetorical flourishes (see<\/em>, for example, From wise counsel good works shall come<\/a>, Greg Combet, Arena Magazine<\/em>, December 2002) — is largely reducible to parliamentary reformism. Moore imagines a happy marriage between ‘social democracy’ and ‘libertarianism’ which: “[t]aken together… can promote alter[n]ative ways for us [to] re-imagine the old Westminster public service as a democratic commons more accountable to grassroots communities”. Sadly, “[m]any Australians, especially in traditional Labor areas, have lost faith in the capacity of government to deliver even the most basic services, and restoring faith in the public is a key challenge for the Left”.<\/p>\n

At which point, I hope I’m excused my impertinence, but I feel compelled to add:<\/p>\n