“It is impossible to
separate political power from economic and social power. [The] false
division [of both forms of power] has lead to the current distortion
of democracy to mean only limited political freedoms existing within
a deeply and inherently unequal society.” - Rebecca Fisher
In this interview, Rebecca Fisher discusses some of the main ideas in her wonderful essay 'The Paradox of Democratic Capitalism: An Historical View'.
The essay was printed in
the must-read Corporate
Watch book 'Managing Democracy, Managing Dissent: Capitalism,
Democracy and the Organisation of Consent' (2013, edited by Rebecca
Fisher), which can be downloaded for free from here,
or bought for the bargain price of £10 here.
A free PDF of this interview is available to download from here.
(1) What kind of a
democracy exists in most advanced capitalist countries today? Is this
kind of democracy genuinely democratic?
The kind of democracy
that exists in the most advanced capitalist countries doesn't really
constitute a democracy, in the original sense of the word. It
certainly doesn't allow for public participation in decision-making,
since this might threaten corporate, capitalist interests. Instead,
it allows a very limited degree of public participation, since most
people are permitted to vote. Various structures and processes are in
place to ensure that this is extremely ineffectual in terms of
influencing what actually happens.
Firstly,
we only get to vote once every 4 to 5 years nationally.
Secondly,
the choices put to us are severely limited – all the available
political parties are pretty homogeneous - no political party is
likely to get the funding or the establishment support if they
presented a radically different alternative.
Thirdly,
important decisions, structural decisions, are made by corporations,
institutions and elites in the interests of capital, often tightly
insulated from 'political' interference. And since these businesses
exert such power, they also tend to exert power over politicians,
almost always with more success than the public can.
Fourthly,
the information about how the world operates, and what decisions are
made, by whom and for whom, is strictly policed, via means of
corporate and state manipulation and control of the media, and other
knowledge producing systems. This means that certain myths and
disinformations can exert remarkable power over public opinion; and
opinions that run counter to the mainstream are portrayed as
'illegitimate'.
The result is a
'democracy' in which the major decisions affecting the vast majority
of the world's populations are made by a very small elite of
individuals and transnational corporations, who prioritise the
demands of capital accumulation above any human or environmental
concerns. The main services provided by the so-called
'democratically' elected governments are therefore to create and
maintain the conditions necessary for this continued economic
expansion.
(2) Are capitalism and
democracy compatible?
No – this is the crux
of the issue. Genuine, participatory democracy and capitalism have
entirely contradictory requirements and demands.
Capitalism requires
constant expansion – i.e. perpetual economic growth – which is
reliant upon the exploitation of labour – both paid and unpaid. It
thus demands both coercion (to make people work in conditions which
enable profit making) and inequality (as wealth and power
concentrates in the hands of a few).
Whereas genuine,
participatory democracy requires both universal freedom to
participate in decision-making, and therefore socio-economic
equality: for if everyone is free then everyone must also be equal
since no-one will have power over them.
This goes to show how it
is impossible to separate political power from economic and social
power. This false division has lead to the current distortion of
democracy to mean only limited political freedoms existing within a
deeply and inherently unequal society.
This is liberal
'democracy' – which is considered democratic as long as procedural
aspects – primarily voting – are followed, even in the absence of
broader social and economic equality or freedoms.
This then is the paradox
of democratic capitalism – capitalism cannot afford to guarantee
democracy because it can't co-exist with the socio-economic equality
that genuine democracy would entail, but yet today capitalism is
commonly deemed to be democratic, despite the rigid limits placed
upon this 'democracy'.
(3) When did you first
become aware of the paradox of democratic capitalism?
I can't really remember
when I was first made aware of it – but what really brought it home
was my disillusionment with mainstream NGOs, for whom I worked
briefly upon graduating. There I very quickly became disheartenend by
the limits to their lobbying and despite their often very sound
analysis of particular issues.
These limits seemed to
stem from the lip-service paid to them by the government – for
example inviting NGOs to lobby them on particular issues, or in
organising safe, AtoB demonstrations.
Liberal governments are
always keen to appear 'democratic' in these ways, yet they can rarely
afford to accede to these demands, at least not the really
substantial ones, since their loyalties are to transnational capital.
I found then that NGOs
tended to limit their demands according to what they felt was
'achievable', i.e. to what they felt the government might relent on,
particularly since they were competing for public support, which they
felt depended on such 'successes'.
So the limitations of the
NGOs' demands seemed to me to stem from the process of engagement
with governments – from the unwritten but firm rules on what is
permissible to advocate for, while still retaining their place at the
table.
The interesting thing was
that this 'place at the table' often then translated as credibility
or legitimacy. Thus, within some circles – I don't mean all NGOs by
any means – to speak of more radical politics might raise a
snicker, or even a guffaw, since they were deemed so beyond the
unspoken pale.
This notion of the limits
of credibility seemed to me to be crucial – and also very difficult
to explain or find the cause of, since the limits were unspoken yet
widely understood. In short, it seemed to me very odd, not to say
disappointing, that despite their patent and obvious difficulty in
effecting any of the changes they were lobbying for, that this didn't
lead them to question the entire system.
(4) How is public
consent for democratic capitalism organised? What happens when this
consent is absent?
This is a very
complicated and multi-faceted process. It occurs throughout and
across a wide range of arenas, and using various means. In the book
they are divided into three main categories: control of information,
co-option and repression.
Control of information
includes processes such as propaganda, language, the state/corporate
media systems and entertainment industries. But we also could have
included academia, education, the public relations industry,
advertising, culture more generally, the family and many others.
The overriding point here
is the sources we have at our disposal to learn about how the world
functions, even how we humans function, how we understand ourselves
even, is influenced, and sometimes even moulded, in ways which
engender general public acceptance of the basic tenets of capitalism
– and in this case, teaches us that capitalism is democratic and
therefore, if you have any problem with it, which you surely will, it
is amenable to change.
Even when the facts on
the ground evidently show that capitalism creates and depends upon
those problems. This is obviously a staggeringly difficult task –
no wonder then that so much energy is invested in masking the
incompatibility of democracy and capitalism.
But it is a task which is
never and can never be wholly successful. People will always resist,
and posit their own interpretations and actions for change. The wool
can never be pulled completely over all of the people, all of the
time.
When people do resist
though, there are various means which help to ensure that such
initiatives do not threaten the entire system. Co-option is the
rather clumsy, all purpose word for this complex process.
Basically, it boils down
to limiting political demands, and bringing their advocates into a
sphere in which they will not be able to effect radical change. Then,
they won't be able to threaten the system as a whole, but will
believe that they are making a worthwhile difference, and so refrain
from trying for more.
Sometimes this is done by
isolating the issue, or the people at stake. And this can be where it
gets tricky – because you can make a real difference to some
people, or on a particular issue, without challenging the system. But
the question here is how come people are so often unable to do both.
How come direct support is very often divorced from the politics of
fundamental change?
One other major way it
can be achieved is by essentially bribing groups and organisations
with funding, which is then, and often very subtly, made conditional
on meeting particular, often political requirements.
Applying for funding also
saps organisations' time and energy, as well as pitting groups
against each other, which can encourage a culture of division and
competition rather than cooperation and solidarity.
Crucially, it creates a
culture of dependency on funding – once a group feels it can rely
on funding it is very difficult to avoid creating structures which
depend upon it. This means that if and when that funding dries up –
or is denied due to the political nature of the work, or to funders'
changing priorities etc – the group is no longer able to be as
effective as it was before it received funding, because it is now set
up to function with funding. It also means that it is more tempting
to go through whatever hoops are required, including dilution of
politics, to chase that funding.
Of course it is also
always worth remembering where the money is coming from and why it is
coming. What are the funding organisations getting from funding a
radical group – is it window dressing? Or subversion? Generally,
wealth and power is not interested in redistributing that wealth and
power so it is essential to be vigilant.
With resistance which
remains radical and aimed at systemic change, and with the potential
to really disrupt the system however, repression is often the only
option for those in power. The crucial thing here is how this is
squared, or attempted to be squared, with the myth that capitalism is
democratic.
It comes down to
ideological hegemony. What I mean by this is that there are firm
limits on what is 'permissible' to say while remaining credible and
'mainstream'. One of these red lines is drawn along the belief that
capitalism is or can be democratic – going against this norm
– this 'common-sense' - often elicits ridicule, incomprehension,
even disgust in modern, capitalist societies.
When these 'heretical'
opinions are translated into actions which oppose capitalist
interests – for instance an anti-capitalist protest which threatens
to disrupt some element of the operations of capitalism – their
supposed illegitimacy is used to justify the repression they receive.
While this shows the role of the state to protect corporate,
capitalist interests, it does so while proclaiming to protect the
public and society.
This is because it seen
as beyond the pale to question the supposed union between public and
corporate interests. For a capitalist democracy, the two are equated
with one another - economic growth is for the public good - and
therefore to threaten one is to counter the other, to be
anti-democratic, violent, anti-social etc.
This
is the point about made forcefully by Dave Whyte in the book
– the union between the 'interests of the market' (as if
personified) and the public. He termed this process 'market
patriotism' i.e. how we are expected to see economic growth as a
good, in and of itself, not because of what it will apparently
provide us.
(5)
How is democratic capitalism able to present itself as
genuinely democratic?
Largely through the fact
of having elections, no matter how stage-managed and controlled they
are. In addition, by ensuring that some – albeit a carefully
selected group – of organisations, NGOs and campaign groups can
pressure these 'democratically-elected' politicians on a carefully
selected collection of non-systemic issues – e.g. through carefully
managed demonstrations and lobbying, petitions etc. Thus 'democratic'
capitalism can say it allows for freedom to dissent.
There is of course also
the much-vaulted freedom of the press – but as the book shows this
freedom is curtailed by corporate and/or state ownership of media
outlets and ideological hegemony – that is by the tacit agreement
to remain within particular parameters of 'legitimate',
'common-sense' discourse.
This translates into a
mainstream media which largely refuses to ask the fundamental
questions about capitalism, and the kind of democracy we have, and in
which more radical views which overstep those parameters are mostly
marginalised or silenced.
So in this way democratic
capitalism can claim to have the procedural elements of a democracy –
elections, freedom to protest, freedom of expression – even though
none of these translate into popular participation in
decision-making.
(6) When did liberal
democracy first emerge, and why?
I argue in the book
that liberal democracy emerged out of the contradictions of
capitalism – that in fact the evolution of the two systems is
interconnected.
Capitalism emerged as a
way to continue the extraction of capital in face of the stagnating
feudal economy, and rising labour power which demanded higher wages
and improved conditions. Liberal democracy emerged as a way to ensure
sufficient acquiescence to that exploitative system.
The real problem of
social control arose since capitalism could not comfortably co-exist
with the legitimating ideology of the feudal social order – i.e.
the divine social order, in which everyone was born with a specific
position in society. This did not allow the emerging merchant classes
to begin new ventures to expand capital accumulation.
So instead, the
Enlightenment period saw the evolution of the social contract – and
liberalism – under which all citizens were supposedly born free and
equal. This freed up those merchants. However, leaving aside for a
moment the millions of non-citizens in Europe and around the world
who were brutally subjugated, this new freedom could hardly encompass
the majority of citizens in the Enlightenment centres. Liberal
democracy became the formal political mechanism behind this new
doctrine of liberalism.
However its freedoms –
including voting – were strictly limited to only the wealthiest
men. Those who had little to gain from capitalism – such women, and
the workers – were deemed to be too much of a threat to the system,
out of which they did so badly, to be given the vote.
Suffrage was granted in
increments – following popular struggles, and only to those whose
material and political integration into the capitalist system
rendered them relatively unlikely to pressure for systemic change
(crucially via the enrichment of the growing middle class through
imperialism).
Eventually, in countries
in the centre this could be expanded to near universal suffrage,
though of course only in conjunction with other mechanisms of social
control.
(7) What are some of
the other mechanisms capitalism uses to contain the social discontent
and rebellion that it produces, besides the mechanism of liberal
democracy?
Overt force is ever
present of course - repression at protests, detention of migrants,
the penal system, military invasions etc. Other coercive mechanisms
can be more subtle – such as debt or financial conditionality
imposed by institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.
Another important
mechanism is the constant pressure to consume – being taught to
believe that what we have is never enough – we must keep up with
the changing fashions, trends, and gizmos. This both keeps us buying
things, a protection against over-production. and identifying in our
purchases, less than in our selves and our relationships, so that we
have less time and motivation for political activity, and more
inclination to believe in the corporation – and by extension
capitalism - as a moral force for good.
Education of course is
another important mechanism of social control – one which we often
forget. It is interesting to note that when universal education was
first enforced in certain American states it was fiercely resisted –
by the communities who were fearful of the state indoctrinating their
children, and protective of their rights to bring them up as they
wished.
(8) Is liberal
democracy currently undergoing a crisis of legitimacy? What about
capitalism?
I'm not sure. I mean I
don't know precisely what level of protest or opposition constitutes
a crisis of legitimacy? It feels slightly ludicrous to make this kind
of pronouncement. What I do think is important though is to have a
sense of crises which isn't strictly linear or clear cut. What I mean
is that while it appears now as though the capitalist and liberal
democratic systems are more stable than a few years ago,( when the
shock of the financial crisis was at its peak), this doesn't mean all
is rosy now.
The bottom line is that
the system of democratic capitalism is and always will be precarious
– so dependent is it on a contradiction and a lie. Moreover, the
planetary limits, if not the human ones, will at some point have to
put pay to constant capitalist expansion, though it might do so in
the form of an ecological collapse.
To avoid this, we must
insist on the incompatibility of democracy and capitalism – and on
the need to build the former at the expense of the latter. Both
liberal democracy and capitalism are remarkably resilient – so this
will be no easy task.
(9) What kind of a
relationship do imperialism and democracy have?
Quite a complicated one.
Initially, liberal democracy was reserved for the centre,
imperialising countries, since it was only there in which certain
sections of the population were sufficiently integrated into the
capitalist system to be trusted with its rewards – I.e varying
degrees of political power.
The European colonial
powers ruled their colonies via a combination of brutal force and
co-option of existing power structures. Until forced, by
decolonisation, there was never much thought of imposing democracy on
them. The US version of imperialism differed however – based on
more indirect power, rather than direct colonialism, the US usually
began their imperial missions with a rhetoric of bringing democracy
to the unenlightened masses who needed their tutelage.
This is now the model
used to justify most imperial ventures – since direct colonialism
is no longer tenable following de-colonial wars. But obviously there
remains a tension between imperialism and the control it requires –
since democracy which supposedly implies the country in question's
independence. How this tension is managed varies – but often it is
done using the same 'tutelage' model.
For example,
post-invasion Iraq apparently needed external intervention and
reconstruction to become democratic. And of course before that they
needed a violent, military invasion, and now the violence is being
escalated once again.
Other tensions are
created in the decidedly non-democratic regimes which are supported
and propped up because they are useful – for instance in supplying
access to oil fields and/or military bases – for the capitalistic
system, with the US at the helm.
These tensions correspond
closely to the tension inherent in the incompatibility between
capitalism and democracy: democracy must be curtailed and managed –
it certainly cannot be left to the people to run - at least not
until those people have been selected and taught how to be
'democratic', crucially via 'democracy promotion' programmes.
(10) What is
'democracy promotion'? Why was it created?
So 'democracy promotion'
is the term given to overt methods of political intervention which
effect indirect imperialism. So what used to be, and often still is,
attempted via invasions, establishing client regimes and the
co-option of elites is now also attempted via training civil society
formations in the formal, procedural mechanics of liberal democracy.
The aim behind this
essentially co-option of civil society, and by extension hopefully
public opinion, is to ensure that political resistance is channelled
into forms which remain compatible with transnational capitalism. It
functions as a way for governments (primarily the US but also the
British, Canadian, Australian, German governments) to intervene and
try to mould the political formations emerging in areas where the
rule of neoliberal capitalism is not yet firmly established or
entirely stable.
The 'democracy' being
promoted is very like the liberal democracy we have been discussing –
in that it limits participation to voting between largely similar
parties, largely aligned with the demands of neoliberal capitalism,
and in which 'legitimate' public discourse usually refrains from
voicing these limitations. While of course claiming to engender a
free, open and inclusive political system.
In short it comprises of
the attempts to construct political structures which organise popular
consent for transnational, neoliberal capitalism, protecting it from
political instability. It includes training for political parties,
NGOs, churches, trades unions, social movements. Democracy promotion
has proved extremely effective in suppressing more organic,
autonomous and liberatory popular politics, and containing resistance
to the capitalist system, often in places where the placatory
'rewards' of that system are thinly distributed.
Of course, imperialist
political intervention and manipulation is nothing new. The important
change signified by this trend towards using 'democracy promotion' is
that its aims are very similar to more direct forms of political
intervention such as colonialism, invasions, covert missions, or coup
d'etats. Instead of imposing political structures 'from above', this
more sophisticated technique moulds them 'from below'. And being
conducted in the name of 'democracy' ensures that they do not court
the same controversy as the previous covert manipulations.
(11) Do you agree with
David Cromwell that the “notion
that we live in a proper democracy is a dangerous illusion”?
Yes, this is the main
crux of the book
in fact. That this belief that capitalism is or can be democratic is
key to sustaining the current system, and causing such suffering and
ecological devastation.
Not only are wars
justified in its name, but it is a key reason why there exists such
general popular consent for capitalism. It operates like a valve, out
of which resistance and anger can be released, without much
substantial political effect.
Without it there would be
more of a risk that the anger would boil over and threaten capitalist
operations – that people would refuse to consent or co-operate. As
it is, the belief that we can intervene in the political decisions
made by political elites and corporations is an important reason why
we don't rebel against the system in bigger numbers, why it's hard to
organise for this.
(12) Do you think that
voting is pointless?
Yes, sort of. But really
it's about being aware of what purpose it serves, and what you may
get out of it. The danger comes when you believe, or imply, that the
liberal democratic system could, eventually, produce a system of rule
that would be egalitarian and liberationary. I have very little time
for arguments based upon 'effecting change from within' since it
always seems like the forces against such change are more powerful
than you, especially when you are so close, and so many compromises
are required of you to remain so close, compromises which dilute and
mutate your original political agenda.
The real issue is that
engaging in the liberal democratic system involves accepting at least
some of its founding principles, which were constructed in order to
placate and contain political dissent, rather than give power to it –
such as representation, elections, the separation of economic and
political spheres.
Hence why it's important
to try and understand the development of liberal democracy in tandem
with capitalism – to understand how interconnected they are, and
that to defeat capitalism we can't use liberal democracy.
(13) What texts would
you recommend to people interested in learning more about the paradox
of democratic capitalism?
I
must give special mention to the book that inspired my work in this
area: William I. Robinson's Promoting
Polyarchy
(1996). This goes into both factual detail and theoretical depth into
the nature, development and expansion of the 'managed democracy' –
which he calls polyarchy. Robinson has also written more recent and
shorter articles on this subject, some of which are available for
free on his website:
For
a particularly insightful take on the historical development of
capitalism (and especially its relationship with sexism and
patriarchy) I'd strongly recommend Silvia Federici's Caliban
and the Witch,
which can be downloaded for free here:
https://libcom.org/library/caliban-witch-silvia-federici.
And
of course the book's
analysis is heavily indebted to the analysis of the mainstream media
by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, in their seminal Manufacturing
Consent.
For more contemporary and UK-based analysis of the media I'd
recommend anything written by MediaLens.
And
then for those wishing to know more theoretical underpinnings of
hegemony and consent of course there's Antonio Gramsci – upon whose
thinking so much of the book is based.
(14) What is Corporate
Watch?
Corporate
Watch is a independent research co-operative, based in London, that
investigates
the social and environmental impacts of corporations and corporate
power. Since 1996 we have been publishing articles, briefings and
occasionally books, based on various themes, including migration,
Palestine, climate change and privatisation, as well as analysing
some of the structural forces which grant corporations such power.
Last year I edited 'Managing Democracy, Managing Dissent', which,
like all our publications, can be downloaded for free online – see:
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/2014/managing-democracy-managing-dissent.
It is also available to buy for £10 from our shop -
http://corporatewatchshop.org/
And
forgive the appeal, but Corporate Watch needs our readers' support to
keep going – please donate if you can:
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/support-corporate-watch.
Regular donors of more than £5 a month will receive all our
publications for free as they come out!
This
interview was conducted by Richard Capes for the site 'More
Thought' and
completed on 15th October 2014.
Follow
'More Thought' on Twitter: @moretht
Follow
'More Thought' on Facebook:
