How do we do it, how do we get beyond the party form?
We all know that the political party form is the very banality of politics. Its form is not only outdated but is ineffective as a tool for mobilizing a lethargic generation of voters. Voters are becoming more apathetic and less-interested in the mainstream political process. The mainstream parties are inherently flawed by the very system they propagate. The mainstream parties run campaigns based upon catch-phrases and slogans, i.e. the lowest common denominator of political intelligence. The method of the parties is insulting to all voters and citizens in its presupposition. The party-form crushes the fluidity of political life and its diverse realities, relations, and processes. The political life of any community cannot be dumbed-down to a few popular words spoken by a well-groomed figure-head.
Do I belong to the centre-right or centre-left? Here is a more important question: what is the difference in 2010 when capitalism is the hegemonic ideology? We live in a completely cynical age. We too are cynical in that we accept these dominant relations, systems, and ideologies as fact. We are cynical about liberal-democracy, we are cynical about capitalism, we are cynical about the economy, and we are cynical about the political system. But cynicism is not a true politics. If it were we would be in a political utopia instead of what is quickly approaching a dystopia. Capital itself is completely cynical. Capital truly believes that there is no alternative to its ideology; its message to the masses is to behave and obey because there is no alternative.
The party-form is a tremendous failure wherever it has been chosen to represent political ideas. Just think about it for a second, we vote for the most basic and broad ideas and there is very little difference between what the parties actually claim. Certainly their claim to cease power is exactly the same, it is cynical.
So how do we get to post-party?
Now of course you will say, well the communist party was also a party and it was a tremendous failure. Of course it was, the Idea was crushed once the party-form was established as the basic representation for the Idea. Yes it was a failure, it was perhaps the greatest perversion of a political idea in modern democracy.
As Alain Badiou says, we can no longer posit the immensity of the Idea of communism as a mere adjective, i.e. communist party, or communist state. It is time to rethink our political process and its blatant failure. The party is a ridiculous form of representation. The party is not a representation, it is a symptom.
I am not sure what to do to get beyond party – but I know the problems with party lines…they don’t resemble reality – instead they impose a reality on people (which would likely address why were cynical).
The problem with politics now is the parties are not indepedent and even if they wanted to do something right – they can’t. The health care debate in America is a clear sign of this problem. The debate is almost ‘do Americans know what is best for them?’. People, in the end, get treated like they’re stupid for wanting an idea that supports everyone. America’s aversion for Socialism.
I would like to see an on-line voting booth of some sort – if they want all people to vote…and something like that where people can voice their real opinions about a candidate’s stance. Accountability is missing in all of this.
“they impose a reality on people”
Yes, the party-system does impose its ideals upon the citizenry, which we are, so then the next logical question is obvious: why don’t we, the people, impose our ideals back upon the state?
This is the essential question to answer.
“I would like to see an on-line voting booth of some sort – if they want all people to vote…and something like that where people can voice their real opinions about a candidate’s stance. Accountability is missing in all of this.”
yes, but a vote on-line or in any other format is just a reignition to a system that is thoroughly in error, concerning actual real-world political representation. So then, it is easy to see why most do not vote. They see the uselessness in it and are they wrong for seeing this error in the system? Probably not. In the end, what is the real difference between liberal, conservative, and social democrat when they all serve the same master.
“In the end, what is the real difference between liberal, conservative, and social democrat when they all serve the same master.” (Johnny)
True…I would say that master is power via money.
My humble opinion is that the aim of the party is wrong. I’m not very sure about this, but my lecture of zizek seems to point to a revolution in the symbolic/imaginary instead of in the real. Say the right thing.
The idea of party cannot exist on the one world. It is rooted in the concept of nation, which must be destroyed if we want a future. We do not need the big other, and if we, the ones who woke up from the ideological dream, do not live as such, there is no hope to change anything.
Yes, the imaginary ‘nation’ is a very real political problem when it concerns the power of the state (Benedict Anderson has some good thoughts on the nation/community). The idea of ‘nation’ always reinforces a perceived difference between peoples; even working peoples under capitalism.
The nation is an organizational stumbling-block, to say the least. But the more difficult news is that the notion of the ‘nation’ is purely subjective: it exists in a shared-group imagination. Whereas, the state is objective and exists purely in formal institutions; albeit very powerful institutions. I wonder which is the harder to overcome? It is a great question that you pose and ideology is the place to start a meaningful examination.
Nevertheless, these institutions are made of people’s activity. They are part of the order of being.
I think in the british cop who thinks that is a good idea to beat teenagers because his superiors told him so, and can go later home feeling great about himself since he was only fulfilling his duty.
But it is all too easy to blame the stupid cop, and not me who happily pay taxes in order that these institutions can work. The more guilty since I realize about it.
And I agree with you agreeing with Zizek, we need to think trough and trough, say the right thing. Here I even find myself in the position of accepting that we have to make magic, creating a new spell. Hegel’s quote on Zizek’s “Tarrying…” appears more mysterious then: “This tarrying with the negative is the magical power that converts it into being.” Nation, family, I. Empty containers that hide the void of what it is.
Dunno if this makes sense. I just have the feeling that we symbolically support the institutions, and that we have to change that.
Certainly we do symbolically support powerful state institutions, maybe even more so than symbolically. Maybe we support them in our actions and thoughts and we re-inforce their power, even when we do not agree with their ideas.
It is very hard to escape that grasp and that power of the state and the nation. But this is where the battle of ideology is so important. Ideology is essential to sustaining these mass-organizations and our own mass political blindness. I think it is always a victory when a single person recognizes this skewed ideology and attempts to expose its flaws through a strong critique.
This is where Alain Badiou is correct. He understands that it is only through the communist hypothesis that we actually have a theoretical basis to critique these state powers and their systemic violences. The communist hypothesis is dynamic in this regard.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
But it is difficult, at least for me. To live in the cross, Eli Eli lama sabachthani? Knowing and tarrying with the feeling that we will never know.
I think in Badiou’s Wittgenstein, and his quoting of “all sounded doctrines are useless, what one must do is to change one’s life.” (or something like that, quoting from my memory…)
Going back to the hipotesys, what are your thoughts about the communist manifesto? I read it one week ago and I’m deeply puzzled, mostly by the chapter on literature.
(And the communist idea should be on my door next week.)
“what are your thoughts about the communist manifesto? I read it one week ago and I’m deeply puzzled, mostly by the chapter on literature.”
This will be a long response. First of all I personally love the ‘Manifesto’ and its political language and its basic intents. Obviously, there are certain ways to read the ‘Manifesto’. It was written in 1848 and plenty of its emphasis was for that time period and many of its claims have proven to be somewhat false. Thus the best parts (still relevant) in the Manifesto are the theoretical parts. The primary theoretical parts of the Manifesto can be utilized quite adequately in the modern world. I find that there are 2 main theoretical ideas that stand strong in the present capitalist world. 1: Abolition of private property and 2: the political potential of the proletariat in the world/global market. For me, these 2 are the essential part for all communist hypotheses of the past few centuries and today.
Marx is still, in essence, correct when he states “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property” (22). As for the proletariat, Marx has been proven quite wrong in his estimation that the European proletariat would be THE revolutionary subject/agent that would usher in communism and defeat capital for all time. But this is not to say that the proletariat do not have the capability to be the main revolutionary subject that ushers in a communism in the modern world. But the modern ‘proletariat’ has changed and is not really the same one that was alive in Marx’s day. But wage-labour is still wage-labour no matter where you live under capitalism; so the potential for strife is there for wage-labourers (Tunisia in the present is a decent example, even thought they are not ‘communist’)
Here is a great quote from ‘The Preface to the German Edition of 1872′. Marx and Engels make some great statements and I agree with their estimations and I take their word for it: “…the general principles laid down in this Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever” (54). Then the two men go on to demonstrate which parts of the Manifesto can be ignored as being relevant and again I have to agree with their thoughts on this: “…no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of section 2″ (i.e. the list of 10 measures). The most important part of the Preface is this statement: “one thing was especially proved by the Commune, viz., that ‘the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made State machinery and wield it for its own purposes’” (54).
So the 10 measures are not absolute and can be changed according to situation and the machinery of the State cannot be high-jacked and just run under a new franchise (even if it is a revolutionary proletariat), it would be apparent then that the state is a problem for any communist hypothesis.
As for the chapter on ‘Literature’, Marx and Engels state that “furhter it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature (chapter 3 of the Manifesto) is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847″ (54). So we see that Marx and Engels find their criticism of those socialist groups as being very dated and somewhat irrelevant in the totality of the Manifesto. I happen to agree.
Reference:
Marx, Karl, & Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. Toronto: Penguin Books. 2004.
What I find puzzling is the fact that there was a section devoted to literature. A really bad written section comparing to the first chapter, that, I agree with you, holds its truth now as ever.
What I cannot agree with, is the fact that the communist Idea can be summed up in the abolition of private property. Changing the real of property relations without changing the symbolic structure of society it is doomed to fail. (The contrary also holds true, we actually need to abolish nations and property, and not just to think about that.) This is where the mention of the abolition of family, nation and literature appears as the sign of a deadlock.
I think we have to be utterly critic with Marx and Engels, they failed in understanding what was it about. We also will. It took me one day to answer this. I need more time to shape these thoughts.
Thanks for the replies.
“I think we have to be utterly critic with Marx and Engels”
Absolutely, it is essential not to take Marx and Engels as pure dogma; or any other communist thinker for that matter. This would utterly defeat the purpose of Marx. It is interesting to note that Marx himself would never support a dogmatic ‘Marxism’ of any kind. Marx would never expect communists and proletarians to just take the ‘Manifesto’ and try to replicate it as it stands. It certainly makes no sense for us in 2011 to replicate a document that is 160 years old and is really only written for “civilized European nations”. So, yes you are very correct in being ruthlessly critical if need be.
Zizek (whom I love to read) states that what is important to do with great thinkers of any age is this: to ask what do they have to say about the present time rather than focusing on what they said in their time. I agree wholeale, it is our responsibility to modernize these great thinkers and find out what is relevant for 2011, especially in documents that are centuries old.