Snipping away at Liberalism.

Since I first wrote about circumcision with regard to the liberal doctrine of free-choice and the communitarian emphasis of religious faith I have discussed the issue of male circumcision with friends and strangers. I was led to these discussions after being accused of being an apologist for religious absolutism and even theocracy. It's the first time that I've really looked into the issue and it seems as though there may not be an easy answer as to the legality of the procedure. It's clear why female circumcision should be illegal, it is unambiguously about the sexual repression and punishment of women. This is not the case with the circumcision of young boys, the evidence is ambiguous as to whether or not circumcision diminishes the sex life of men. It's also the case that the circumcision of women is not a religious phenomenon, rather it is a relic of a barbarous past. It precedes the Abrahamic religions in Africa and used to be prescribed to cure 'mania' in Europe.

It has become all too ordinary, especially in Europe, for cultural chauvinists to hide behind the shibboleths of bourgeois liberalism. In this view anything that constrains the capacities of the individual has to be shunted out of the way. It used to be the state, now it’s anyone with any beliefs which might prefer a stronger state. No wonder the cultural conservatives who slimed the Left have found common cause with liberal secularists. The self-proclaimed opponents of the state have come together to empower the state further in order to rid the world of fanaticism. It gets weirder as the guardians of free-choice come to defend the imposition against choice. The self-described libertarian Geert Wilders has called for the banning of the Islamic veil, the banning of the Quran and no doubt lots of other barbarian fetishes. Only the Western liberal lifestyle option can be chosen because it emphasises choice, freedom and pluralism.

Nevertheless it is the liberal democratic system of human rights, civil liberties and equality of opportunity which the reactionary Right want to throw under the bus. Let alone multiculturalism and political correctness. All of this is worth defending from the cultural chauvinists and crypto-fascists. The aim isn’t just to get at the freshly settled Muslim community of many European countries. It’s about bashing Muslims to get to the real enemy, liberalism. The same is true of so-called counter-terrorist legislation, it infringes on our basic liberties and not to protect us. It’s the destruction of civilisation rather than the defence of civilisation. The traditional authoritarianism of the European Right rears its hideous casque once more in this way. That isn’t to say that the hatred of Muslims is purely extrinsic. It’s very real and shouldn’t be underestimated in its role in the populist projects of cultural rightists and chauvinists.

We can tell this much from the campaign against homeless Muslims in France where the far-right have set up soup kitchens that only serve pork-based soups. Likewise, the closet fascist Mel Gibson lashed out at Jews on the silver screen to get at the Vatican and its concession that not every Jew is guilty of deicide. Here we find anti-Semitism fits into an ultra-traditionalist Catholic agenda in rebellion against Rome. It’s not that the Australian ham-actor isn’t a Judeophobe; it’s that there is something more going on than a prejudice. This is relevant as we find increasingly the Muslims of Europe are pinned as alien to Western civilisation and subversive to the liberal precepts of capitalist society. There was a time when Jews were taken in the same light. And it is no coincidence that we find the attempts to restrict the freedoms of Muslims has slid into restrictions on Jews as well. This is most blatantly the case with the calls for bans on halal meat and circumcision.

I was eager to take the side of the religious groups that would be affected by a change in the legal status of circumcision for good reason. It would seem that there is more going on when people are calling for a ban on a practice of Muslims at a time of raging Islamophobia. This is where we should ask ourselves further questions about what it means to live in a liberal society. If we take seriously the bodily integrity of a child as well as freedom of conscience then we would be led to the legal regulation of circumcision rather than a ban. This could take the form of stipulations, that the operation has to be performed by a professional with anaesthetic. We might even go for an age of consent. Liberalism leads us to this compromise between secular individualism and religious communitarianism. The call to ban circumcision is suspect given that it is possible to find a compromise within the realms of liberalism. That's before we even consider the political context of Europe, with its authoritarian traditions of conservatism.

Democracy and Socialism.

In my essay on polyarchy I only addressed narrow questions of American liberal democracy with the Bush administration as a principle example. There are much more interesting questions raised by the concept. It's very easy to scrutinise the democratic institutions of capitalist society, but it is less clear what position should be drawn from such a critique. After all the notion of polyarchy picks away at the liberal ideal of representative democracy and seems to push us towards notions of a radical democracy. This is all especially relevant to socialists, who lack a theory of government - that's the breach that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' filled in the 20th Century. It's easy to dismiss vanguardism, but it's less clear where to head next if we want to retain our commitment to socialism. It could be that this is just a matter of transition. In defence of historical materialism GA Cohen wrote of communism as freedom from social structure. It's possible to see radical democracy as consistent with such a notion.

I turned to my friend Chris Horner on this matter and first made a few clarifications "Well, from a Marxist perspective, class is abolished altogether - after a transitional period (socialism) to a point at which class antagonism no longer exists: proletariat abolishes itself at the same time." Before adding "So the way Marx envisaged it was that democracy would be vastly enhanced by socialism - in the interests of the proletariat - and the bourgeoisie would be in the state of the current proletarians - i.e., unable to use economic power to enforce de facto 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'. Would this be polyarchy? Possibly, but only briefly." He went further to stress that Karl Marx was never all that clear about this, though all Marxists seem to see the class struggle continuing after the revolution for a period. I recall that Mao pointed out that the ruling party can take on the role of the ruling-class after the revolution and so opens up the need for a mass-movement to undermine the party-state apparatus.

It's worth noting that Karl Marx thought it would be much easier for the working-class to achieve victories, to some extent, through the fledgling Parliamentary institutions of Europe. The dichotomy between the promise of grass-roots democracy and a sort of Hobbesian reaffirmation of statehood. The former has the comforting appeal of ultra-leftism while the latter takes the contrarian line in its unreconstructed defence of a strong state. It seems pertinent that the vanguardists have little use for concepts such as polyarchy. Instead you might tend to find more simplistic talk of oligarchy and plutocracy. This is where the Left is problematically sectarian, its inability to sustain fine differences. Rousseau had seemed to favour an egalitarian variety of an 'elective aristocracy', which could be seen as a version of representative or delegative democracy. Then there's the accusation that this is just 'reformist' meandering out of the revolutionary project. Yet it's very clear that the capitalist system can only be overthrown through revolution.
 

You could interpret the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as a sort of polyarchy given it's representative composition of prevailing economic interests. Chris went on to say "The range of opinions is represented (as they are in liberal society), but the bourgeoisie no longer has its hands on the levers of economic power. Ultimately a radical democracy develops in a context in which class no longer exists. Again, I wish Marx had said more about this, but maybe he was being wisely cautious. That doesn't mean socialists of all stripes shouldn't think hard about what a democracy actually is!" Another friend of mine once joked that the ultimate victory over capitalism will be signified by the lack of presence of officially socialist/communist parties, as well as the insignificant presence of tiny capitalist parties that will never take power. There's some truth in this as it points at hegemony and that's something that the polyarchy model definitely appeals to. This is where we need theory more than ever.

Weakspots of Despotism.

The theorist of non-violent resistance Gene Sharp has been credited as the major intellectual influence on the Arab Spring. It was seminal book From Dictatorship to Democracy that has been cited as the principle inspiration for the grass-roots uprisings all over the Middle East and democratic movements elsewhere. Let's be careful not attribute too much to Sharp, the revolutionary explosion came out of certain socio-economic conditions in the region. We shouldn't exaggerate the role of external sparks, the democratic movements of the Middle East were endogenous. To suggest otherwise risks the reinforcement of Orientalist illusions of a primitive Arab rabble, 'It had to be our revolution really, they couldn't have done it on their own!' But it was interesting to flick through Sharp's book and I recommend it. In regard to political power it cites the following sources:

1. Authority, the belief among the people that the regime is legitimate, and that they have a moral duty to obey it;
2. Human resources, the number and the importance of the persons and groups which are obeying, cooperating, or providing assistance to the rulers;
3. Stills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating persons and groups;
4. Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors that may induce people to obey and assist the rulers;
5. Material resources, the degree to which the rulers control or have access to property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, and means of communication and transportation; and
6. Sanctions, punishments, threatened or applied, against the disobedient and non-cooperative to ensure the submission and cooperation that are needed for the regime to exist and carry out its policies.

Sharp notes that each of these sources in turn presupposes a degree of acceptance of the regime, whether it just be submission or complicity, which is not guaranteed. This is very interesting with regard to the section on the weaknesses of dictatorships, which lists the following weaknesses:

1. The cooperation of a multitude of people, groups, and institutions needed to operate the system may be restricted or withdrawn.

2. The requirements and effects of the regime's past policies will somewhat limit its present ability to adopt and implement conflicting policies.

3. The system may become routine in its operation, less able to adjust quickly to new situations.

4. Personnel and resources already allocated for existing tasks will not be easily available for new needs.

5. Subordinates fearful of displeasing their superiors may not report  accurate or complete information needed by the dictators to make decisions.

6. The ideology may erode, and myths and symbols of the system may become unstable.

7. If a strong ideology is present that influences one's view of reality, firm adherence to it may cause inattention to actual conditions and needs.

8. Deteriorating efficiency and competency of the bureaucracy, or excessive controls and regulations, may make the system's policies and operation ineffective.

9. Internal institutional conflicts and personal rivalries and hostilities may harm, and even disrupt, the operation of the dictatorship.

10. Intellectuals and students may become restless in response to conditions, restrictions, doctrinalism, and repression.

11. The general public may over time become apathetic, skeptical, and even hostile to the regime.

12. Regional, class, cultural, or national differences may become acute.

13. The power hierarchy of the dictatorship is always unstable to some degree, and at times extremely so Individuals do not only remain in the same position in the ranking, but may rise or fall to other ranks or be removed entirely and replaced by new persons.

14. Sections of the police or military forces may act to achieve their own objectives, even against the will of established dictators, including by coup d'etat.

15. If the dictatorship is new, time is required for it to become well established.

16. With so many decisions made by so few peole in the dictatorship, mistakes of judgment, policy, and action are likely to occur.

17. If the regime seeks to avoid these dangers and decentralizes controls and decision making, its control over the central levers of power may be further eroded.