Worse still (and perhaps as an outcome of 30 years of neoliberal sameness), the main parties now rank (in people's minds) alongside the BNP. I think every so often it is useful for people to take a giant step back. The level of hyperbole, paranoia, and extremism that (worryingly) seem to be dominating our society more and more (not to mention the party internal radicalisation such as in the Tory party with its flirtations with the far-right) are making Britain a rather disturbing place.
The overblown expenses scandal has also contributed towards this drift towards rather more extremist views and positions.
For sure, as mentioned, neoliberalism has played a huge role in this. There is a new, different level of disconnect that permeates society. Still, I am reluctant to pass off the issue of agency that easily. It is down to individuals to take certain political issues. One explanation that gets my goat is that Labour (or any other party) has 'forced' people to vote BNP. That is nonsense, pure and simple. People aren't 'forced' to vote BNP in much the same way that people aren't 'forced' to preach hate.
People who enter the perverse fringe and margins of politics (not just outside the main parties, but also the colluding with neo-fascists in certain countries) do so at their own behest and not because they are 'forced'. To uphold such a narrative is to conveniently overlook the fact that the majority of people still don't feel 'forced' to enter said perverse fringe.
So back to that giant step back. Deep breath, a step back, and suddenly reality comes creeping back...
27 comments:
I didn't watch this, but my own view is that the BNP are a very insignificant party and that the neo-liberal elite just like to have them on standby so that they look comparatively good.
I entirely agree with you that no-one is forcing anyone to support such a vile party. Yet ironically, they seem to be the best organised social democrat party in Britain, what with the greens and lib dems both having fairly right wing economic views (of course maybe I am missing out other parties: I HOPE they are not the biggest party pushing for social democratic economic reforms). The BNP are also one of the most isolationist parties. (Whilst the lib dems were right about Iraq they state that they support 'liberal intervention')
To me, it seemed a foolish idea to get Nick Griffin on TV. I'm not saying it was WRONG just that there seemed little point. From what I've heard they pretty much put him in stocks and pelted him. Yet the question wasn't asked of the mainstream politicians why someone as stupid and unpleasant as Griffin has any votes at all? Is it because we are only offered different flavours of neo-liberalism?
Gregor,
The BNP aren't social democratic or anything else. If corporations embraced them, they'd happily dish out handshandies to the lot. The far-right always wishes to destroy social democracy and embrace corporatism (alongside their racial and social perversion policies). The BNP are no different in that respect.
As far as the Iraq War is concerned, well, let's put it this way: I'm sure there are child rapists who were against the invasion, but that does not mean that child rapists therefore have a better moral standing than even someone like Jack Straw.
I don't think neoliberalism is the only factor as to why the BNP get votes (let's not forget, there is no upsurge in votes, and let's not forget the far-right has been really strong in places like France for a very long time now, and let's not forget that the overall support for the far-right has been fairly constant in this country since 1945). It's a very complex map of poverty, racism, fear, and apathy.
As I said on another blog, after all Tyne- Wear- and Teeside don't vote BNP; nor does county Durham, nor Plymouth, nor Glasgow, Dundee, or Merseyside. There are other factors to this.
Hi Olching
You are right, the BNP would probably root out any economic leftists before you could say ‘night of the long knives’ if they had capitalist backers who supported them. (and I was foolish to say social democrat because they are openly contemptuous of democracy).
However, my point was that all of our political parties seem to be turning rightwards and grovelling to the ultra rich. That is certainly not an excuse for voting BNP, but given that most people see the mainstream as an out-of-touch plutocracy, I think New Labour and the Lib Dems do share some of the blame for the BNP.
I was under the impression that the BNP did have increasing membership and had unprecedented success in the EU elections. However, even if not, they may be growing in influence due to apathy of other voters.
Well, yes, you are right. There is a lurch to the right (both to the libertarian and authoritarian right, though the two are quite interdependent anyway).
Still, this was meant to be the big year for the BNP. I cannot think of a time when the mainstream parties were more hated (don't forget the Euro elections took place at the height of the expenses 'scandal') and still the BNP did not manage to increase their vote. The percentage went up by 1.3% as a result of voter apathy, but in absolute figures BNP support stayed the same.
Euro elections are notoriously mad, i.e. people vote for parties they would usually never vote for (including myself here), certainly not at a general election. And still, the BNP got shat on by the electorate. This is why I thought it was wrong to suddenly 'react' to something that hasn't happened. There was no need to invite Nick Griffin onto QT, because the political map of Britain is no different to what it was in 2005 (or in the 1970s when just looking at the far-right).
Now they've invited the racist pervert into the mainstream fold, and this is where the shift to the right is consolidated. I mean, what the fuck is Baroness Warsi doing posturing as a figure of the centre of politics?! Why were they all trying to outdo themselves in sounding like someone to the right of Tebbit when talking about immigration?!
They've completely misread the British public and have been patronising the 'white working class' by treating them as a monolithic entity which is constantly on the cusp of out and out racism. Nonsense in my opinion.
Voting patterns for the far-right rather show less support from working class groups (particularly unionised ones), because they are also the ones exposed more to immigrants (and still they don't vote BNP!).
The points I'm making, Gregor, is that a lot of these debates are based on false premises that have become orthodoxy.
It is this misunderstanding that has given the BNP more space and more oxygen to suck out.
To really understand the lurch to the right, of which this new concentration on minuscule nationalist parties by mainstream media is but one symptom, you have to take a step back and analyse what has happened to the make up of society in general.
Simply put, inequality of wealth and opportunity creates a harsher environment in which people naturally act with less compassion.
The kind of me-first thoughtless self-protection which fascism and nationalism pretends to cater for becomes more attractive because general fear and stress levels are redlining in ordinary circumstances.
Of course this isn't purely coincidental, it's stage-managed as well. The increased air time for idiots like Griffin helps to deflect argument away from the massive systemic problems we have throughout societies.
Where is the real questioning going on? Look at where we have arrived at after such a long period of capitalist domination and ask yourself what is going wrong...this question is necessarily avoided to the benefit of the loony fringe.
Olching and freinds,
The "Ars" is up.
http://arsnotoria.blogspot.com
If you are interested in joining a new blogging collective then please email me at:
philiphall@london.com
Very good point, Lester. There does seem to be a new level of nastiness and maliciousness that permeates society now. Not nice.
The mainstream parties pander to that of course by talking about 'mass immigration' etc...it's like repeatedly poking a dog and then wondering why it bites.
The worry I have is that the lurch to the right becomes uncontrollable. Don't forget, it doesn't take a 40% vote for the BNP or any far-right party for it to have serious implications. Look at France, Belgium, or Italy, or worse still: Hungary.
"Tyne- Wear- and Teeside don't vote BNP; nor does county Durham, nor Plymouth, nor Glasgow, Dundee, or Merseyside. There are other factors to this."
Yeah, but none of the places mentioned above have significant numbers of ethnic minorities. East Lancashire, particularly Blackburn, Burnley, Oldham and Darwen always had large numbers of Asians encouraged initially to work in the mills. When I say significant, I'm talking about 20+%. I've been visiting Blackburn to visit the in-laws for 20 odd years and attitudes to Asians have deteriorated markedly.
The reasons are three fold I believe.
Firstly, Labour's 'abandonment' of the working class and courting of middle England has indeed left traditional supporters feeling unrepresented. Secondly, the lack of meaningful union representation and decline of large scale industrial plants has removed the general feeling of solidarity and "we're all in this together" which drew attention to similarities and common causes; making exploitation and disadvantage a class rather than a cultural issue.
Lastly, the pernicious influence of identity. Assimilation, which was never so much a policy as much as a natural phenomenon, a necessity even has ceased. Taken together with the deunionisation, there are simply not enough opportunities within a civic or social setting for people to mix and explore commonalities. There is little chance at present, that any sort of cross cultural solidarity can re-emerge unless identity and diversity are scrapped.
Finally, and there's no escaping this one, and as you so rightly point out: whatever the 'social' or external pressures; it's down to the individual in the end and it takes a full-on twisted cunt to ever vote BNP.
This situation is of course reflected in other areas, notably parts of the Midlands and West Yorkshire-again, you find heavy support for fascists in this area.
(One thing |I have never seen btw is a gender breakdown of BNP support. I'm guessing it would be 75% plus male-does this exist anywhere?)
Monkey, good to see you here.
Some of these areas do have large ethnic minorities (London of course, too), but I think there probably is something in the observation of parallel communities in some areas.
As far as the Labour party is concerned, I'm not 100% convinced it's that simple. You're certainly right about the breakdown of unionism, but the Labour Party has always been vague-ish in its position vis-a-vis the working class. To be sure, New Labour is a new ball game altogether, I just don't think that there was ever a time of harmonious Labour-constituents relationship.
You might be interested in this: I've just read Andrew Thorpe's A History of the British Labour Party, which I think is quite a good account the party.
In general, I'm trying to figure out the factors for BNP votes, because I think it's multicausal rather than anything else, particularly because the Tory-BNP switch-over is big but often neglected.
And so the implication in the media over-focus on working class support is that the working class are too stupid so that they end up voting for fascists. It's a typical middle class narrative, I feel, to view the working class as not to be trusted, whereas the support for the far-right also comes from elsewhere (from "cunts" as you rightly say).
On identity, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it. Inevitably, people will have multiple identities (in much the same way that, say, Liverpool and Everton fans exist and live side by side). It's such a complex issue, because we're not just one identity (or belong to one group, if you wish), but I think you're talking about policy directives, no?
Gender...I remember seeing stats that said BNP membership is 1 in 8...I think that's right, but I can't be sure. In any case, it makes sense that wannabe goose-steppers attract sexually frustrated male cunts.
"On identity, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it. Inevitably, people will have multiple identities"
Undoubtedly, but elements of that identity have been privileged over others. For instance, it's a fair bet that a young guy of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin living and educated in say Blackburn has, or had 20 years ago, more in common culturally with his white neighbour than he did with anybody in Bangladesh or Pakistan. This is still probably true but for whatever motive, the Muslim element of his identity seems to have been increasingly promoted by both his own community and through the identity agenda,NGOs and central government...futher it's been appealed to by political parties, notably NuLabour in order to garner support. Whether it's due to Iraq, the effects of identity and multiculturalsim or partisan campaigning, this young guy has had pressures brought to bear on him which militate against an integrationist approach.
I realise that what I'm about to say is undeniably anecdotal, but the lack of research into what has caused an upsurge in support for the BNP generally requires that any 'evidence' will be. As I said above, I've been regularly visiting Blackburn for about 20 years. Blackburn is a small isolated, very working class town with a very large Asian, mostly muslim minority. When I first started going there were clear signs of integration and generally good relations between people of all races and cultures; mixed groups in the pubs, total absence of the niquab, no real evidence of a geographical split-mixed streets, shops etc. It really wasn't an issue.
There had been support for the NF in the 70s. particularly in nearby Burnley, but that seemed to be an aberration which could be confidently resigned to past history. I went out recently however and the situation was very different. Hardly an Asian face in the pubs, little mixing...what you might describe as a clear reversal of assimilation seemed to have taken place. I asked about this and was told "they've all gone Muslim...stick to themselves now". This might be a gross simplification but it certainly appeared to be true.
3 Factors struck me as explaining this. As I mentioned last time, the decline in union influence as a means of reinforcing common causes and solidarity was significant. Possibly not nationwide but certainly in small towns with heavy industry and large industrial plants, it was a huge driver of integration. Labour party support and union membership were always solid, tribal even, in such places and their disappearance has had a dramatic and divisive effect.
Secondly, Iraq and Afghanistan..although I'm not so sure that this counts as a separate explanation so much as something that intensified an already present trend.
Lastly a focus on identity and multiculturalism from a left which had abandoned economic inequities and needed something to preserve its 'progressive' credentials. This might originate with 'policy directives' but its results on the ground were officially sanctioned, promoted and funded social and cultural institutions/ initiatives which were culture specific and reinforced separation and division in a situation where these were already on the rise largely due to economic factors. Whatever the full extent and effect of these initiatives they engendered a resentment amongst whites which was probably, although possibly not, out of proportion to their actual influence.
continued...
I think I should point out that I don't lay the whole blame for a multicultural approach at the NuLab door. I regard it as a natural consequence of the Left's retreat from economic to cultural 'agitation'. I'd take it right back to the Frankfurt School..especially Althusser/Marcuse and the decicision of the 68 generation to launch their revolution upon 'texts'.
This is a lengthy discussion; one I had with Hank and others the other day.
http://cifthreadrefugee.blogspot.com/2009/10/daily-chat-231009.html
...and into the following day.
As I said above, I realise the above is anecdotal and a particular explanation for a particular sort of social setting ie. post industrial areas with an unusually high level of BNP support. BUT, these areas (East Lancashire, South and West Yorkshire are precisely the areas where support is strongest and the BNP have made breakthroughs)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2008/nov/19/bnp
More interesting perhaps is the breakdown of support for Barnbrook. The Top Up (additional member system) meant that this was always likely but I'm not sure I've seen any attempt to break the vote by region or 'class'.
However, on a more general note, I did support the principle of allowing the BNP onto QT; just not the eventual strategy which looked ridiculously one sided and might have been skilfully exploited by a more practised, media-savvy and smoother candidate than Griffin.
I have faith in the ability of the working class to see right through their bullshit and the unvoiced reasoning of the liberal media that they'd be easily seduced by what turned out to be a useless fat gobshite strikes me as condescending, authoritarian and just the sort of useful liberal idiot tactic that the BNP have been relying on. Rather than dismiss the British public as easily led and potentially racist, the media should be looking back in history and especially across the channel and playing up relative British tolerance and disdain for the extreme right-wing.
Instead, the liberal media especially has latched onto this notion, again identity driven, that their job is to constantly reinforce the joys of diversity. I don't buy it at all. Culture is nothing if not evolved and evolving. The notion of artificially inflating or preserving a particualr culture or cultural viewpoint is reactionary and anathema to me...and it has a highly disreputable and tragic history. I see myself as an assimilationist. Cultures should feed into each other, gain from the meld and move on.
The notion that a set of traditions born from the geographical, religious, cultural, social, climactic and other considerations in 1960s Bangladesh should transfer and have its essential features preserved in 2009 Burnley for the sake of an arbitrary interpretation of a particular academic trend is beyond parody...but it happens.
The whole sorry spectacle was probably a desperate last-ditch effort to make the walking corpse of New Labour look good.
Vote for us, we're not Fascists!
That is how bad things have become.
The BNP win seats due to low turnout. Low turnout is caused by the fact that a lot of people now see the big 3 parties as 3 wings of a single party.
Instead of giving people something positive to vote for, it seems the main parties are going down the much easier and convenient route of playing up a sad fringe of deluded idiots as the main threat to British democracy and getting people to vote through fear.
Short-term, it might be a pragmatic strategy. Long-term, it only makes the sad bunch of deluded racists stronger.
Monkeyfish,
I suppose the strange thing is that this difference that you mention is something that has emerged throughout Europe, so perhaps it's not due to particular encouragement, but rather a generational issue (as a result of the social and political environment and thought).
I don't think that expression of identity (through organisations etc) is necessarily a bad thing. Don't forget that until fairly recently those channels simply weren't there, but Paki-bashing for example was. So I can imagine that the last 15 years have felt also empowering to some members of ethnic minorities. But it could really be a generational shift.
The best example is of course the veil, and it crosses through European society right into - naturally - the Muslim world. It's bizarre that the veil has re-emerged as a symbol in both the Muslim world and Europe at the same time (perhaps there is a causal relationship, though I'm not that clear about it).
I have faith in the ability of the working class to see right through their bullshit and the unvoiced reasoning of the liberal media that they'd be easily seduced by what turned out to be a useless fat gobshite strikes me as condescending, authoritarian and just the sort of useful liberal idiot tactic that the BNP have been relying on.
Yep, I agree. But I would say that inevitably support for the BNP will go up (albeit slightly) with increased exposure. But of course (this is not spotted by the MSM) this has nothing to do with the working class, but far more with the kind of atomised suburban employee lanscape.
Incidentally, I'd love to know the switch rate from Tory to BNP. I think it's higher than we think. Many of the interviews with BNP members and voters I've seen are with people who used to vote Roty (I saw at least three such interview immediately after the Euro elections). As you say, it takes a cunt to vote BNP, and there are simply more of them among Tory supporters.
Czarny:
It certainly is a sad state of affairs.
I disagree with monkey on inviting Nick Griffin on QT, because it didn't serve any purpose than creating an embarrassing situation for all involved (and probably giving the BNP support that it does not need).
By the way, Monkey, I agree on economic structures. They are and remain the main issue in all of this. The systemic violence exercised by these structures is the main problem, of course.
I think my irritation with the whole BNP issue stems from a number of things entirely separate from the obnoxious nature of the BNP, who incidentally, I don't regard as a serious threat as things stand right now. Basically, they're a bunch of insecure, personally challenged (mainly) men who never really made it out of the playground.
Rather, it's what they represent to other people. To a widely despised and discredited political class, especially a soi disant 'Left' with no objective claim to the name, they represent, in relative terms, a claim to credibility and decency. They're a dream come true. A chance to regain some moral stature. As such, the feeble performance mounted by the mainstream parties on QT was entirely lamentable. Straw being cheered for an inept "anti-fash by numbers" routine turned my stomach. Racism aside, the traditional threats muted in the face of fascism are already being set in train by 'mainstream' politicians..trial by jury, 'hatespeech' legislation, anti-union legislation, databases, surveillance, racial profiling...things are fuckin Orwellian enough without the BNP.
Griffin serves a purpose; he makes them look reasonable in comparison; like Sarkozy's specially selected, vertically-challenged entourage..it might fool people for a while but ultimately he's still a shortarse.
My other major concern is for the young. WE need unions in this country desperately. At present there's no understanding of this among the young. Instead they've been raised in a culture of self-promotion, competition and a popular culture which celebrates wealth and self-interest. The history and traditions of the union movement are never promoted. I remember as a kid the worst thing that you could ever be called was a scab. (Not an ideal situation, I'll grant. I'm sure there were fellas who went home drunk every night, beat the wife and kids, gambled away every penny but were still considered OK because but they 'stayed out'). None the less, there was a palpable feeling that solidarity and commonality were essential and the rule which eclipsed all else was "YOU DO NOT SCAB". Now look at the postal strike...and the 'temps'.
The achievements of the left in this country were enormous but were piecemeal and gradualist..not especially inspiring, not at least in comparison to fighting fascism. The Left was at its best, achieved most credibility and most of its kudos from opposing fascism. Look at young bloggers and writers these days..they probably have a couple of single issues they feel strongly about but given the chance, what they want to do is bash the BNP. Fair enough..but it's a sideshow, a chance to showboat against a bunch of inarticulate, frustrated child-thugs. It just distracts from the real issues.
Homage to Catalonia has a lot to answer for.
continued..
And finally, there's the precedent thing going on with QT.
I'm not totally decided on global warming. Two reasons: scientific predictions, peer reviewed, evidenced based, though they may be are too often wildly inaccurate. See Swineflu and the 300,000 dead this winter. Also I've faith in human ingenuity, determination and agency to find a solution.
Such a position apparently makes me not a sceptic, not an agnostic but apparently a 'denier' (sic). Now that's a word which, as you know is not only inaccurate but bears sinister and inhuman connotations. How long before climate sceptics are denied a platform for similar reasons?
I don't think it's permissible to deny a platform to views that you find unpalatable. Additionally, bannings lend a certain mystique and cache to the otherwise unremarkable and forgettable. I think QR should have let him on, treated him as a bit part and moved on. He's a stupid cunt with a lack of support...these things have a limited shelf life.
Did you catch Hank's Tax Haven piece btw?
http://untrusted2.blogspot.com/
That's something that should have the youth in the streets. Where's the media coverage?...hiding their own involvement and instead all over an inarticulate fat prick with a messiah complex and third reich fixation.
That's what the internet's for; not supporting a political class in a bit of mutual moral preening over a non-existent threat.
Monkey,
I agree with you on the issue of self-promotion and self-interest. It's a problem that transcends generations, too. Greed is good, didn't you know? It really is problematic, and I guess you are right: This results in the meaningless squabbles about detail without being able to think in societal terms.
On the issue of QT, I think we'll probably continue to disagree. Not inviting him onto QT is not censorship. The BNP have normal rights to freedom of expression and make use of them. For various reasons, however, I think the QT episode was a flawed undertaking with negative results across the board. European examples have already shown this and I think they've been stupidly ignored.
It's also not about which opinion are liked or not. QT ought to be about debate and the BNP have nothing to add in that respect. The outcome of the invitation was always going to be what it is now. The same, by the way, would apply to, say, child molesters (of which there are undoubtedly plenty).
I saw Hank's piece and liked it. Why no outrage? Well, you've said it: Detailed, meaningless squabbles without societal impact.
By the way, I didn't join in Hank's thread, nor any other Untrusted thread: I'm steering clear of it. With the exception of you, Hank, Peter, Parallax and Jay, I've never quite forgotten the treatment meted out (and the mealy-mouthed fucking silence that followed it by the otherwise 'unsilent') to me this summer.
Hope all is well.
Impressive unearthing of conditions that allow BNP a voice. I'm not able to comment on Nick Griffin and the rise of fascism in the UK - your jurisdiction, your country. But we had a not dissimilar scare a few years back. It stirred us out of our complacency.
There was unprecendanted support for the 'One Nation' party in Australia in the mid-nineties.I could regurgitate our history and it's not pleasant. It's very unsettling realising that you live in a country where the extremes take over the governance whilst your back's turned. (As much as wiki is maligned I've read this particular entry and I think it gives a good over-view). We have a dubious history when it comes to White Policy - our history in this regard is a disgrace, a stain - even when we think history is healed it's still there as a raw scab ready to be picked. It just goes to show that the 'fuck-off-you-asians, sod-the-indigenous' still live amongst us and the sad fucks are waiting in the wings to agitate when the national pysche (and that's not a wank expression) is on alert after the media spin from the 'war-on-terror' merchants: aka all (name your enemy) are dodgy, and if you don't know what an (enemy) looks like then take it from us all non-*australians* are dodgy'.
The problem is, if you're unemployed or even if you've not reached the heights of flat-screen TV consumerism as a sense of achievement, then you feel disenfranchised in your own country (and as MF says if you've lost the union that supports you [or rather allows you a public articulate face] then you're looking to lash at at the media-spun targets).
Anyway this is more a sense of sharing your despair from another side of the world - I don't know the players in your market, but I'm glad to see strong opposition.
Thanks for this, parallax.
I hope this will wake people up out of their complacency, but I've been a bit more pessimistic over the last week.
By the way, out of interest: How popular is the notion that Australia is 'full up'?
How full is full? It's a moveable feast olching, chained to the economic climate. In periods of recession immigration quotas are down to stem rising unemployment; in times of growth the quota shoots up to attract immigrants to fill the labour skills shortage. Biggest problem for Aus is the infrastructure required to cope with a rising population - housing, transport, energy and especially water. (As one local commentator says: In this country, water — the precious stuff of life itself — is traded on what passes for an open market. That is to say: you can theoretically buy it from farmers along the Murray-Darling Basin. The problem is, the sham that passes for a water market in Australia is so dysfunctional it makes the central planners of the Soviet economy look like paragons of laissez faire deregulation.)
Currently PM Rudd is for increased immigration and parallel strengthening of infrastructure - no surprises that the opposition are scaremongering about Aus being swamped and unable to cope. The more extreme view is that the next wars will be fought over water not oil.
by the by ... and I know you are a close reader olching, so this is directed outwards rather than to you specifically ... the penultimate para. of my 28 Oct post about flat screen tvs etc. is of course laced with bilious contempt.
Immigration policy is policy as capital protection - of course :)
Interesting article, Olching.
However what we're seeing is probably the inevitable consequence of a "mature" democracy in which the process of convergence toward a liberal consensus is almost complete.
It's "post-democracy" and, between you and me, it's a bit rubbish.
Yep, Pat, it is post-democracy (or post-ideology?) and everyone is a liberal. Greens are liberals, Tories are liberals, Labour liberal, LibDems well...
So is part of being liberal treating everything as an equal discourse and thus losing any sort of perspective?
PS Parallax, saw your link to Nick Cave on the Untrusted. Beauuuuutiful!
Hmm, I'm not sure if our age is so much "post-ideological", as representative of the triumph of a particular ideology, liberalism (economic and social) and as such the democratic process is reduced to chucking out one set of custodians of the orthodoxy to replace them with another set until we get fed up again.
One of the problems with this, of course, is that it's as boring as fuck, which is why parties the BNP will always generate interest because they provide a frisson to both its supporters and opponents which is lacking in mainstream politics.
(For what it's worth, I don't think many people really do think that the mainstream is "as bad as the BNP" and any attempts to make such comparisons are generally crass attempts at rhetoric by the usual "ZaNuLabore" suspects on CiF.)
In the interesting article which you linked above, your chum Zizek warns against the fetishization of democracy and in a sense he is right - democracy should be viewed as a mean towards the "good life" rather than end in itself - but on the other hand, having reached a kind of "end" as I think we have done know, we run the risk of losing the democratic habit, if you like, and with it the ability to resolve conflict peacefully - and that's a grave danger, I think.
Pat,
I should have put post-ideological in inverted commas, of course. So, it's 'post-ideology', and you are right that liberalism is the ideological quagmire in which our post-ideology is immersed.
Zizek is right about fetishisation (something that he dealt with in his early work), but this also means that rhetoric and politics become formulaic and devoid of 'democratic values'.
Post a Comment