Is agitation inherently undemocratic?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I can't help but think of how the popular slogan "We are the 99%" was made. It was not made by Occupy's fetish for consensus and prolonged deliberation, but rather by Adbusters, the non-profit organization that inspired Occupy in the first place.

That said, is agitation inherently undemocratic?

[The Jay]

How could it not be democratic? I really do not understand what you are getting at. Could you elaborate a little further?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Ask yourself: who decides the slogans?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

the 99%/1% thing is pretty old, it's not as if it was just created in late 2011.

[Prometeo liberado]

Agitation, for the purposes of this thread, is defensive. Reactionary(not int the rightist sense). How these slogans are used for propaganda purposes is where the democracy comes in. Was there a general assembly vote to decide on the occupation of the various parks around the country? Of course not, it was a defensive reaction to the first salvos in the war for austerity fired on the people by the capitalist regime.

[Jimmie Higgins]

^^^ Ask yourself: who decides the slogans?Ask yourself why that slogan at that particular time. Why not all the other things Adbusters has been doing for the last decade?

Why that occupation and not any of the university ones or the Bloombergville that some of the OWS occupiers had made half a year earlier?

There are countless factors which add up to a more or less spontaneous protest movement like OWS: the experience of the initial participants and organizers, various other factors in the larger political atmosphere, and so on.

More people know "99%" than Adbusters and only the people who know of Adbusters would link the two. For everyone else it's more or less a meme, a slogan; it really doesn't matter who originated it as much as who popularized it. If working class and popular consciousness was not grappling with the idea of inequality and it's invisibility in the mainstream, then the Adbusters slogan and the initial protest would have had as much impact as a new advertising slogan by American Apparel or a "flash-mob" respectively.

Cultural or media producers, political groups or induvidual leaders, can make an impact on a movement, but they can't make the movement itself. Adbusters was in a position to appeal to the broad discontent with a very clear series of slogans (of which only a couple actually became part of the wider use) but they don't have the respect, the skills, or the inclination to actually lead a movement so propaganda and publicizing some calls is about as far as they can go.

The media played a bigger part in the Immigrant Rights and the Tea Party movement. In the case of the Immigrant marches, this is due to a relative lack of organization vs. a huge sentiment among, specifically, Latino immigrants - 2nd generation, naturalized, documented, or not. Spanish-language media simply could not have maintained their place in urban Spanish-speaking communities if it had not supported these marches. So they generally played a publicizing and moderating/channeling role. They helped Democrats get out in front of the movement and push for "pathway to citizenship strategies" and pushed for everyone to wave American flags etc.

But IMO, the problem here was not the media, but lack of an organized alternative that could argue for full amnesty and put policing and repression up front, etc.

The Tea-Party was heavily media-shaped, but it was top-down and large organizations (like Americans for Prosperity) on the right picking up various fringe right-wing tendencies who were all equally pissed. Even then it couldn't sustain itself with out the popular base for it - even with the help of FOX news. (Maybe they'll revive it - i'm sure the far right will continue to mutate and pose a threat as the crisis continues - but for the "classical tea-party" of the Glenn Beck days, I think people will remember the day "entitled union fatcats" chased them out of Wisconsin during the occupation protest there, as the day it died.)

[hatzel]

There are obvious problems with the whole 99%/1% thingy, what with it being thoroughly liberal in nature, building itself on a thoroughly inadequate analysis.

That said, not all of those partaking in actions under the banner of 'the Occupy movement' (or perhaps even just alongside the movement, without participating in it directly) would have accepted such a shallow understanding of the world. Perhaps one could argue, therefore, that there is always a certain risk here, that radicals taking part in such a movement dominated by liberals may come to be 'subsumed' (to a certain extent) under this popular slogan. That is to say, the existence of the slogan and a singular 'voice' of the movement tied up with that slogan, may act to level out of the great variety of people participating, which clearly ran from the radical Left to the antisemitic (or otherwise capitalism-fearing) Right, and lead outsiders to believe that all acting in or around Occupy-occupied spaces subscribed to this liberal 'line,' even though a great many wouldn't have. Is it then fair to claim that there is something undemocratic about this all, that the sloganeering itself and the whole 'PR campaign' led by a certain dominant group (which may have been a majority or a minority) acted to silence and marginalise dissenting voices (in turn legitimising the media's attempts to categorise all individuals involved in the movement as the same liberals speaking in the whole movement's name)? Arguably.

I feel it is fair to claim that this is an inherent possibility/risk in any mass movement which seeks to present itself as a unified mass with a single voice, which is inevitably suggested when one devises a specific slogan. In such case one obviously has to ask questions of how exactly this voice came to be elevated above all other coexistent voices, whether it was elevated by a dominant group within the movement itself or whether it was chosen by the media faced with a variety of voices, and whether this decision was an undemocratic move to silence others and homogenise the movement under a particular (presumably more palatable) banner...

[Q]

I think I get DNZ's gist. Agitation is, by very definition, a simple message that a particular party (group, person, etc) wants to transmit to a broad layer of people. The slogan of the "99%" is a typical example of this. You send out the message, whether or not your aimed audience likes it or not. They don't have a say in the message.

The opposite to this is education. This is where the aimed audience does have a say. In fact, it is a vital part of communist political education for this to happen. Only if workers are educated to pose themselves as a potential ruling class, can they challenge the system. Posing yourself as a potential ruling class implies a strong sense of class-collective and, therefore, a highly and universally educated people that think for themselves and can act in a political fashion that goes with their class interests.

Education therefore is more aimed at advanced layers of the working class. Agitation however is more useful for backward, reaction or racist layers of the working class. Agitation, if properly used, can be a useful tool in elevating political awareness and opening such minds for a more educational stance.

I'm wondering though why DNZ is bringing up this matter in such an unprovoked manner.

[blake 3:17]

I think a slogan like we are the 99% is perfectly democratic -- masses of people have embraced it.

Any slogans, chants, or agitational images are going to have a source somewhere, and meanings aren't necessarily fixed.

[Grenzer]

I think a slogan like we are the 99% is perfectly democratic -- masses of people have embraced it.

You seem to be missing the point entirely.

How is it democratic? Was this slogan created and put forth by the masses themselves after extensive debate and deliberation? It was not, it was put forward by a special interests group.

That's almost like saying the United States is a legitimate republic because "masses of people have embraced it".

In any case, Q covered the matter quite well already. I'm wondering what DNZ is getting at. I don't necessarily judge something on its democratic content or lack thereof.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think I get DNZ's gist. Agitation is, by very definition, a simple message that a particular party (group, person, etc) wants to transmit to a broad layer of people. The slogan of the "99%" is a typical example of this. You send out the message, whether or not your aimed audience likes it or not. They don't have a say in the message.

It's better, comrade that the agitative message is slick, but yes, the audience doesn't have any syllable, let alone any say, in what's transmitted.


The opposite to this is education. This is where the aimed audience does have a say. In fact, it is a vital part of communist political education for this to happen. Only if workers are educated to pose themselves as a potential ruling class, can they challenge the system. Posing yourself as a potential ruling class implies a strong sense of class-collective and, therefore, a highly and universally educated people that think for themselves and can act in a political fashion that goes with their class interests.

Meh, I wrote about the initially aristocratic (classically) and meritocratic nature of political education. That was the point of my Renaissance education thread, about the only ones who should qualify to put forward program proposals.

The audience has a say only to the extent of an up or down vote and contributing to but not leading the earlier brainstorming. The aristoi does the rest: http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/party-policies/

"Rule by the best" education, effective agitation that is nothing less than explicitly top-down, and participatory-democratic organization: a "mixed government" of sorts within worker-class movements.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

agitation and sloganeering are not one and the same.

Most agitations have slogans, but the slogans are often formulated, to my mind, as a very simple, crude (and therefore often not wholly accurate) representation of either the beliefs, character or demands of the agitational group.

As has been said, agitation is often a spontaneous and defensive measure, not one of organisation or political offensive (not at the beginning at least).

Reminds me of the 1381 peasants' revolt. Clearly a noble cause, and even though Wat Tyler displayed great dis-respect for the King when the King met the peasants, the peasants adopted slogans which were decidedly pro-monarchy. Obviously, it wasn't a revolt that was intended to save the monarchy, it had totally different origins, but the songs sung and slogans chanted did have a pro-monarchic character, for one reason or another.

I guess another point is that, even if agitation isn't democratic insofar as it is spontaneous and doesn't arise out of any pre-ordained bureaucratic process, you can't just eliminate agitation! It's a natural reaction, often by an oppressed group, in response to either a real or perceived injustice. Therefore, i'm not sure if this is really an interesting question, or one that is particularly relevant.

[doesn't even make sense]

Democracy is more an ideal, banner, and asymptotic goal than something that actually is. Agitation in the service of liberation is more democratic than the most formally perfect and inclusive vote for backwardness and reaction.

And to be a little more grounded, the success of agitation depends on those affected and inspired by it. People might be gullible, irrational, and un/misinformed but that doesn't mean they are just passive sheep to be herded.

[Vanguard1917]

I think I get DNZ's gist. Agitation is, by very definition, a simple message that a particular party (group, person, etc) wants to transmit to a broad layer of people. The slogan of the "99%" is a typical example of this. You send out the message, whether or not your aimed audience likes it or not. They don't have a say in the message.

But if any worthwhile agitation or slogan has to take into account the level of consciousness of the particular groups within society that it is trying to influence or lead, then the thoughts and beliefs of those groups will have played a role in influencing the agitational 'message'. That's not to promote any kind of opportunism or tailism - it's just to highlight the fact of a dialectical connection between the content of the propaganda of the activists and the political consciousness of those being targeted.

Hence why the 99% 'slogan' of the occupy movement was not any kind of agitation as traditionally conceived. A small gathering with no set of political positions to speak of, standing outside of any wider social force and insisting that it speaks on the behalf of virtually the entire population, is the direct opposite of what political agitation actually is.

[Die Neue Zeit]

agitation and sloganeering are not one and the same.

Most agitations have slogans, but the slogans are often formulated, to my mind, as a very simple, crude (and therefore often not wholly accurate) representation of either the beliefs, character or demands of the agitational group.

Typical left agitation as it stands today relies on too much sloganeering.


I guess another point is that, even if agitation isn't democratic insofar as it is spontaneous and doesn't arise out of any pre-ordained bureaucratic process, you can't just eliminate agitation!

I'm not saying that at all!

[Avanti]

it is not democratic or un-democratic. the content of the message decides the taste.

saying that, democracy and consensus are pretty boring. i've been in a number of local initiatives, and i am so darn tired of all emos, hipsters and hippies who use these gatherings as a platform to babble on about themselves and their theories of universal harmony or whatever...

*yawn*

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hence why the 99% 'slogan' of the occupy movement was not any kind of agitation as traditionally conceived. A small gathering with no set of political positions to speak of, standing outside of any wider social force and insisting that it speaks on the behalf of virtually the entire population, is the direct opposite of what political agitation actually is.

Occupy had a political spark, if not a full-blown political program. The undemocratically developed "99%" moniker, liked or not by its aimed audience, was a very good political adaptation of the Push-Pull Promotional Strategy used in the business world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push–pull_strategy

[Tower of Bebel]

Agitation is closely tied to populism: at best you get a benign elite that wants to stimulate the masses to take popular action. Have a look at former Venezuelan president Chavèz for example. But is doesn't have to be this way.

Propaganda, as per Plechanov's definition, consists of a series of ideas that are distributed among a few people. Those people have, because of their small numbers, the means to discuss and elaborate on these ideas. Agitation, on the other hand, consists of one or a few ideas that need to be spread among broader layers. Either they pick it up, or they don't. It's a question of take it or leave it. Both are fairly neutral definitions.

Depending on the concrete relations between, and the strenghts and weaknesses of, the different class in society, both can be considered "democratic" or "undemocratic". While "Bolshevism" has stigmatised the concept of agitation in the West, "Stalinism" and "fascism" have stigmatised what is considered propaganda. That's not only because of the use of both concepts by "dictatorships", but also because of the distortion applied by the ruling bourgeoisie.

So both words have nothing inherently (un-)democratic. It depends on the class relations in society. Honest representatives of the masses can use slogans to organise the whole of the masses around a basic "programme" while waging a ruthless propaganda war against the dominant ideas of the ruling classes at the same time. This practice is inherently "democratic", but it could be considered as the opposite of it. "Demarchic", however, it will never be.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Agitation is closely tied to populism: at best you get a benign elite that wants to stimulate the masses to take popular action. Have a look at former Venezuelan president Chavèz for example. But is doesn't have to be this way.

Propaganda, as per Plechanov's definition, consists of a series of ideas that are distributed among a few people. Those people have, because of their small numbers, the means to discuss and elaborate on these ideas.

Comrade, I think that p-word is old-fashioned with respect to political education. Wilhelm Liebknecht's slogan is more accurate, yet ironically more contemporary.


Either they pick it up, or they don't. It's a question of take it or leave it.

I couldn't agree more.


Depending on the concrete relations between, and the strenghts and weaknesses of, the different class in society, both can be considered "democratic" or "undemocratic". While "Bolshevism" has stigmatised the concept of agitation in the West, "Stalinism" and "fascism" have stigmatised what is considered propaganda. That's not only because of the use of both concepts by "dictatorships", but also because of the distortion applied by the ruling bourgeoisie.

Which "Bolshevism" are you referring to regarding agitation? Given that you mention both "Bolshevism" and "Stalinism" in quotes, I hardly think you were referring to Official Communism.


So both words have nothing inherently (un-)democratic. It depends on the class relations in society.

But didn't you just say "at best," though, about agitation tied to some form of "benign elite"?


Honest representatives of the masses can use slogans to organise the whole of the masses around a basic "programme"

The word "platform" is better used here than "program," since we are talking about agitation after all. I have criticized Trotsky for using Krichevskii's method knowingly or unknowingly (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-program-updated-t99491/index.html), but that doesn't mean a constructive critic can't write a paper on Improving Krichevskii's Method of Action Platformism. I merely credit the sources / attribute properly after the criticism.


"Demarchic", however, it will never be.

My original post didn't pose the question in terms of demarchy. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer for demarchist comrades such as yourself.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How is agitation not democratic? If a slogan is shit and unpopular then it won't gather any support, hence why 'Social Proletocracy' is supported by a man and his dog, and many, many people have been inspired to some sort of resistance by the 'we are the 99%' stuff.

I presume DNZ is continuing his farcical opposition to agitation because it presents a threat to his utopia of managing capital in some radical manner where money continues to exist, capital continues to accumulate, and young, handsome leftists in suits administer the economy from a bureaucratic, post-Keynesian standpoint.

[Desy]

young, handsome leftists in suits.

And the suit phobia is back. No one has time for that.

[l'Enfermé]

Why is "agitation" in this thread being reduced to mere sloganeering and phrase-mongering? :(

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why is "agitation" in this thread being reduced to mere sloganeering and phrase-mongering? :(

What about sensationalism in general? Isn't that the gut core of agitation?


And the suit phobia is back. No one has time for that.

Actually, lots of people have time for that, thus the purpose of business casual attire. I think what Boss really meant was "handsome leftists" in such attire, and certainly no one has time for phobia against that.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Actually, lots of people have time for that, thus the purpose of business casual attire. I think what Boss really meant was "handsome leftists" in such attire, and certainly no one has time for phobia against that.

That's not what I meant, in fact i'd appreciate if you didn't presume to speak for me.

What I meant was, your latest fetish, which seems to involve the saviours of the left being those who look like politicians, act like politicians, but somehow end up representing the working class rather than the capitalist class?

This is just, to any person who resorts not to indescribably obtuse neologisms but common sense, a very open and shut case of: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's not what I meant, in fact i'd appreciate if you didn't presume to speak for me.

So you did mean formal suits after all.


What I meant was, your latest fetish, which seems to involve the saviours of the left being those who look like politicians, act like politicians, but somehow end up representing the working class rather than the capitalist class?

You forgot one more point, and this is a (OMG!) jab at the likes of the well-spoken Tsipras: actually having a (perhaps non-unionized) workforce background! It helps to connect with "the rest of us" by as many means as possible.

[Fionnagáin]

Who gives a shit about "background"? Class is about what you do, it's not just a biographical detail.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you there. I wasn't referring to just past "background" when I made my statement.

[Luís Henrique]

I think I get DNZ's gist. Agitation is, by very definition, a simple message that a particular party (group, person, etc) wants to transmit to a broad layer of people. The slogan of the "99%" is a typical example of this. You send out the message, whether or not your aimed audience likes it or not. They don't have a say in the message.

Hey, you sent your message, whether or not the rest of us like it or not. You are oppressing me by writing in revleft!!!!1!!1

Is all communication undemocratic?

Luís Henrique

[Fionnagáin]

Asking if communication is undemocratic is undemocratic.

[Tower of Bebel]

But didn't you just say "at best," though, about agitation tied to some form of "benign elite"?
It's not always tied to the concept of a benign elite that finds its support among the masses. Although in it's ealry years utopian and pre-communist agitators always sought support from the elites when they agitated, modern socialist agitation can become part of genuine class movements.

(And by "Bolshevism" or "Stalinism" I meant the popular use of these words in or outside the media for example. It's not genuine Bolshevism or Stalinism.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

In that case, does "benign elite" really apply to figures like Chavez? I'm not sure if this is the case, except in the sense of the well-placed agitator(s) knowing how to push to right buttons of political sensation. It's certainly quite different from "self-agitation" sponty fancies in some corners around here.

[blake 3:17]

@DNZ -- no movement can be perfectly democratic and in the course of struggle hard calls have to be made. Was it right or democratic for Black children to participate in civil disobedience in the US South in the Civil Right Movement? That was a calculated ploy by the leadership. Black men getting beat by police wasn't going to pull the heart strongs of Northerners, but seeing little children hosed and bit by dogs would. How democratic was that?

[Ele'ill]

why does agitation have to be democratic

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Asking if communication is undemocratic is undemocratic.

How, exactly, is this true?

[Fionnagáin]

It was a joke...?

[Die Neue Zeit]

why does agitation have to be democratic

In ancient Greek philosophy, various forms of governance are democratic, aristocratic (meritocratic and not hereditary), monarchic (also non-hereditary), "ochlocracy" (mob rule), oligarchy, and tyranny. Here, agitation is inherently neither democratic nor "ochlocratic." It is inherently hierarchical. Therefore, what form of hierarchical governance facilitates the most effective agitation?

One political rehabilitation factor in this debate is this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-monarchy-strawmani-t172753/index.html

[Ele'ill]

Here, agitation is inherently neither democratic nor "ochlocratic." It is inherently hierarchical. Therefore, what form of hierarchical governance facilitates the most effective agitation?


where is 'here' and how is it inherently hierarchical and why does agitation have to be democratic

[Lucretia]

Gee, I don't know. Are arguments really democratic???? I mean, think about it. You're telling people that YOU have the RIGHT view on a particular issue or a question, and that the other person is WRONG. Isn't that a little arrogant and prejudicial?? Hmmmm??? Shouldn't we just let people decide to keep their own views, without cramming our own views down their throats, regardless of our opinions of them???