Rafiq
7th March 2016, 06:48
I tried to make a rather brief blog post with regard to the (potential) political meaning of democracy today within the wider context of the idea of 'a revived democratic struggle' (which I've elaborated upon before, both here and in my short critique of Diem25) so as to give people an idea of what one is talking about when they speak of 'democracy' in a radical context today (say, with Democracy in Europe Movement, even to a certain extent the rhetoric you may find with Sanders) or any such potential contexts.
It is my attempt at trying to use language that people who may be less theoretically knowledgeable can understand (that is, most people on the internet) kind of in the language-style of an online news outlet. Before you say it keep in mind I am fully aware that I could have failed at this, it's not something I am particularly good at.
As a political culture emerges that places an emphasis on revitalizing the democratic standards in society, both in the sphere of actual, political practice and philosophy, it is easy to be confronted by difficult questions. Indeed, we Communists today seek democratic discipline, a revitalized meaning of this word in the face of an increasingly ‘authoritarian’ and technocratic capitalism, wherein the general ideological disdain for ‘politics’ and ‘political talk’ is virtually all-encompassing. However, one cannot help but immediately be confronted by difficult questions.
Zizek in particular, upon being confronted with such questions, has voiced skepticism of placing an emphasis on revitalized democratic partisanship for this reason, citing both the ‘anti-democratic’ nature of Merkels’ pro-refugee policies as well as more obvious examples: like the popular support possessed by the Vichy regime in France. Indeed one can really go on with infinitely many examples of this nature.
It is commonly purported to be a ‘paradox’, namely, if democratic subjects oppose the prerogatives and decisions of the majority. This is quite common.
Read more: https://jrachblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/democracy-our-weapon/
It is my attempt at trying to use language that people who may be less theoretically knowledgeable can understand (that is, most people on the internet) kind of in the language-style of an online news outlet. Before you say it keep in mind I am fully aware that I could have failed at this, it's not something I am particularly good at.
As a political culture emerges that places an emphasis on revitalizing the democratic standards in society, both in the sphere of actual, political practice and philosophy, it is easy to be confronted by difficult questions. Indeed, we Communists today seek democratic discipline, a revitalized meaning of this word in the face of an increasingly ‘authoritarian’ and technocratic capitalism, wherein the general ideological disdain for ‘politics’ and ‘political talk’ is virtually all-encompassing. However, one cannot help but immediately be confronted by difficult questions.
Zizek in particular, upon being confronted with such questions, has voiced skepticism of placing an emphasis on revitalized democratic partisanship for this reason, citing both the ‘anti-democratic’ nature of Merkels’ pro-refugee policies as well as more obvious examples: like the popular support possessed by the Vichy regime in France. Indeed one can really go on with infinitely many examples of this nature.
It is commonly purported to be a ‘paradox’, namely, if democratic subjects oppose the prerogatives and decisions of the majority. This is quite common.
Read more: https://jrachblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/democracy-our-weapon/