The International Journal
of
INCLUSIVE
DEMOCRACY
A
theoretical journal published by the International Network for Inclusive
Democracy
ISSN 1753-240X
OUR
AIMS
Inclusive Democracy
perceives the world to be in a multidimensional crisis, caused by the
concentration of power in the hands of various elites, as a result of the
establishment of the system of market/growth economy, representative
democracy and the related forms of hierarchical structures.
Inclusive Democracy aims to become the international forum for the new
conception of inclusive democracy. That is, direct political democracy,
economic democracy (beyond the confines of the market economy and state
planning), as well as democracy in the social realm and ecological
democracy. In short, inclusive democracy is a form of social organisation
which re-integrates society with economy, polity and nature.
Civil society and “radical democracy”
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”.
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
our problematique, the “civil societarian” approach, from which the
conceptions of radical democracy emanate, is both a-historical 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 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.
The
“new” social movements
At
the same time, it is now obvious that the “new social movements” have failed
to fulfill 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 modern 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.
This
journal's problematique is therefore differentiated from both the civil
societarian “Left” and 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.
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.
Concentration of power: the cause of the multidimensional crisis
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. The current “war against
terrorism” launched by the transnational elite as well as various national
elites all over the world —a “war” that has plunged humanity towards a new
Middle Ages― is both a cause and an effect of the concentration of power at
the hands of various elites.
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 power relations 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.
The
Inclusive Democracy project
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 transcending 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.
In
this framework, the need for a new liberatory project is both imperative and
urgent. Inclusive democracy is not seen as a utopia but as probably the only
way out of the present crisis. We believe that a serious proposal on the
form of a future post-capitalist society can neither be the outcome of the
dialectics of History (as dialectical materialism does), or of the
dialectics of Nature (as Social Ecology’s dialectical naturalism does) nor
the object of some intellectual’s vision and the moral values he draws from
social struggles (as for example Parecon does). In other words, we reject
both modernist objectivism, with its close historical associations to
totalitarian outcomes, as well as post-modernist subjectivism which
inevitably leads to various types of ideological soups masquerading as
“moral visions” respectively.
In our view, for a liberatory project to be credible today, it must
constitute a fully-fledged political project (with its own historical
analysis of the emergence of the present society, as well as a transitional
strategy towards it), which, integrated into one of the historical
traditions of the Left, draws the organisational principles of the future
society from a systematic analysis of present society and the trends within
it. Therefore, we do not adopt 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.
If
therefore we define the liberatory project in terms of the demand for social
and individual autonomy, we do so because we responsibly choose autonomy, as
well as its expression in democracy, and we explicitly rule out the
possibility of establishing any “objective” laws, processes or tendencies
which, inevitably, or “rationally”, lead to the fulfilment of the autonomy
project. However, once we have chosen, broadly, the content of the
liberatory project, some definite implications follow regarding our
interpretation and assessment of social reality. In other words, the very
definition of a liberatory project conditions the “way of seeing” and
criticising social reality.
The
Inclusive Democracy project that we adopt 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.
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. 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.
The
purpose of the journal
Inclusive Democracy
aims to become the international forum for this new conception of inclusive
democracy. That is, direct political democracy, economic democracy (beyond
the confines of the market economy and state planning), as well as democracy
in the social realm and ecological democracy. In short, inclusive
democracy is a form of social organisation which re-integrates society with
economy, polity and nature.
However, we also welcome contributions which do not necessarily share the ID
perspective, if they are considered by the editorial committee and the
international referees associated with the journal to be of general interest
(see for details the Notes for
contributors).
The
journal is published four times a year (Summer, Fall, Winter, Spring)
and all back and current issues are uploaded in this site.
The Editorial Committee
© The
International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 2004-2015