Although we often expect them to, governments can't make and sustain tough decisions on issues that we as citizens are unwilling to make or support. Only a public can do these things.

Moreover, democratic governments need broad public support if they are to act consistently over the long term. Their foundations are in the common ground for action that only citizens can create.

Politicians often face situations in which the nature of the problem is unclear, the goals of the public aren't defined, or values are at issue and conflict has gotten out of hand.

On major issues, it can take a decade or more to change policy. The role of deliberation is to keep that long journey on track and out of unproductive complaining and blaming.

And governments — even the most powerful — cannot generate the public will needed for effective political action. Governments can command obedience but they cannot create will.

It is up to us as members of a public to transform private individuals into citizens, people who are political actors. Citizens can create governments but governments can't create citizens.

The most straightforward definition of a deliberative democracy is a process that goes beyond the majority rule towards broader consensus.

Deliberations are much more than negotiations to reach compromises. Deliberation is a process to search, extract and exploit the unifying or universalizing potential that exists in any dialogue.

Deliberation is a specific type of debate where language gets back to its roots, i.e. altruism and cooperation.

Legitimate governments and legitimate laws are the ones who are the results of deliberation procedures.

I think I appreciate where you are coming from and professionally speaking I agree with much of what you've posted. In municipal government particularly (the level of government where I work) meaningful participation of citizens in decision-making is very important to both the development and the sustainability of policies, programs, and projects; citizens should be viewed as democratic actors as opposed to consumers of government services, placing on citizens a responsibility to be more than passive consumers and on governments a requirement for real engagement with their constituents.

All that said when I read your post and consider the nature of the state I cannot help but notice a major gap in your analysis around the role of the state. I suggest you read Lenin's the State and Revolution, if you haven't already; if you have I am curious what your thoughts were on reading it. You can find it online here.

quote:

---

I think the most essential role of the state is geared toward protecting a people against foreign peoples or empires (invasions). In other words, I explain class oppression by rulers inside a country by the degree of exterior threat they feel.

---

Hmmm, you must be a Star Trek fan?

A state is not for the purpose of protecting all of its people; if that is the purpose of the state all states are utter failures. States protect some of their people from others of their people, and those same enfranchised folks from external threats (often using the bodies of their fellow, disenfranchised, countrymen/women). The nature of the state is class oppression, and would be so without external threats.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:
This largely constructive transition, which has been relatively peaceful, was possible by collectively rethinking the conditions under which natural resources can be appropriated by individuals.

---

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:
On no territory has the Bourgeoisie replaced the monarchy by violent means.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

---

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:
It is true that the spirit of capitalism was at first specific to Protestants....

---

quote:

---

Violence is not necessary to win the class war, pursuing the ongoing collective deliberation is sufficient to win it. Think at what was needed for humanity to substitute our (post)modern societies stratified in two classes (owners of the means of production and workers) for the medieval societies based on three rigid and hierarchical orders or casts (warlords, religious cast and peasants). This largely constructive transition, which has been relatively peaceful, was possible by collectively rethinking the conditions under which natural resources can be appropriated by individuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:
A misunderstanding is nothing compare to a refusal to participate in a dialogue. Even face with an explicit refusal to discuss, contemporary philosophy is not disarmed, it will invoke the concept of performative contradiction. A performative contradiction is an unresolved tension between the stated position of a person and his position as someone who expresses himself with the expectation of being understood. For example, the sentence, "I (here and now) do not exist" entails a performative contradiction of the fact that I (here and now) exist, which in turn is a precondition for my ability to make the statement. Thus, no sooner does someone objects than he commits himself to an argumentation game based on presuppositions that entangle him in a performative contradiction. Participating in a dialogue for the sole purpose of saying that one does not wish to participate represents a contradiction of a set of preconditions that are already true—if one's refusal to participate is to be intelligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:

Two sides with unequal relations can get together and deliberate on things, then when the talking is over each side returns to its own place in society. The dominant class does not voluntarily cede its control of the state apparatus with no exertion of force by the oppressed. In fact it has never happened that way; I invite you to study your history more carefully and examine those "enlightened" and "benevolent" monarchs which our history books look back upon with such rose glasses; ever bit of power the Bourgeoisie obtained from the nobility they did so by force or by threat of force. Besides that revolution was much simpler, it barely changed realities for the vast majority at all, nothing compared to the upheaval which eliminating the Bourgeoisie class would cause/has caused where attempted.

---

quote:

---

How can you find the motivation to write me a reply if you are so sure that you cannot alter my will without resorting to force or by threat of force?

---

A few quick points off the bat: 1) I hadn't assumed that you were a class-enemy, sorry , 2) It is a mistake to reduce society to the interaction between two individuals, not much can be learned and a great deal will be missed, 3) I think we shall need to establish a definition for "violence" to continue.

I'm happy to reply to you here and enjoy it myself whether I change your opinion or not, so do not mistake me for someone who only derives personally satisfaction from conquest. If indeed you are an enemy and I convince you to surrender with words alone (which is in-itself no guarantee of non-violence), well, that's just one less enemy who must be subdued by violence then

Finally (regarding that question), I'll engage with your misguided scenario: What if you enter a negotiation, make all your points, and as a result, the person on the other side does not change their position? What if they have all the power in the negotiation and simply refuse to budge? Do you resort to violence or do you surrender your position?

quote:

---

I'm convinced that you won't be able to escape from that performative contradiction without sacrificing your mental health that is, without literally becoming a madman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:

What if you enter a negotiation, make all your points, and as a result, the person on the other side does not change their position? What if they have all the power in the negotiation and simply refuse to budge? Do you resort to violence or do you surrender your position?

---

When you will be able to understand that resorting to violence and surrendering one's position are the same action you will see better all the potential that a deliberation contains. The analysis of Fight Club, the movie of David Fincher (1999), by Slavoj Zizek, allows us to see quite clearly that a self-directed violence seems a necessary first step to overthrow capitalism. For Zizek, the message of Fight Club is that liberation hurts. If there is a great lesson of the 20th-century history, it's the lesson of psychoanalysis: The lesson of totalitarian subordination is not "renounce, suffer," but this subordination offers you a kind of perverted excess of enjoyment and pleasure. To get rid of that enjoyment is painful. Liberation hurts.

http://community.indigo.ca/posts/Reading-Chuck-Palahniuk/group-335/320952.html

[ 23 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

[ 23 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

quote:

---

When you will be able to understand that resorting to violence and surrendering one's position are the same action you will see better all the potential that a deliberation contains.

---

My position involves violence; no contradiction there. I've had some good discussions about this before and I accept that violence is a slippery slope leading to all or none; anyone with illusions in that respect might find violence to be a surrender of their position but I'm not sure why I should and you haven't given me any reason to agree with the theory you've presented here.

quote:

---

If there is a great lesson of the 20th-century history, it's the lesson of psychoanalysis: The lesson of totalitarian subordination is not "renounce, suffer," but this subordination offers you a kind of perverted excess of enjoyment and pleasure. To get rid of that enjoyment is painful. Liberation hurts.

---

Psychoanalyzing the class struggle is a silly waste of your time IMV; being oppressed isn't somehow enjoyable and it won't be missed by anyone. The oppressors will certainly miss the old days but thats it. And of course Liberation hurts, removing a parasite is painful, especially one as resourceful and dominant as the capitalist class; you don't need a movie to learn this however, examine liberation struggles in real-world history.

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:
being oppressed isn't somehow enjoyable and it won't be missed by anyone. The oppressors will certainly miss the old days but thats it. And of course Liberation hurts, removing a parasite is painful, especially one as resourceful and dominant as the capitalist class

---

You will have to incarnate this parasite if you want to achieve a revolution. Capitalists have all sorts of reasons to suspect their workforce to be a bunch of parasites since capitalism is the product of very methodic and relentless work by acetic Protestants. The movie Fight Club shows us the way. In order to blackmail his boss into paying him for not working, the film's hero (Edward Norton) throws himself around his boss' office, beating himself bloody before security staff arrives. In front of his embarrassed boss, the hero thus enacts on himself the boss' aggressivity towards him. The self-beating of the hero is equivalent to adopting the position of the proletarian who has nothing to lose. The revolutionary subject emerges only through this experience of radical self-degradation, when someone allows/provokes his employer to emptying him of all substantial content, of all symbolic support which could confer a modicum of dignity on him.

quote:

---

You will have to incarnate this parasite if you want to achieve a revolution.

---

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here; you will have to clarify as the parasite to which I referred is hardly theoretical and quite solidly "incarnated" at present.

quote:

---

Capitalists have all sorts of reasons to suspect their workforce to be a bunch of parasites since capitalism is the product of very methodic and relentless work by acetic Protestants.

---

What? This is absolutely ridiculous; sure we've all been subjected to that old Protestant canard about hard work paying off and everyone getting what they deserve but to give any credence at all to such a warped and unrealistic world-view is beyond the pale! We are talking about the modern economy in which one class labours and the other lives off of this labour, literally harvesting the life-energy of the masses to sustain the bloated parasite of the capitalist.

quote:

---

The movie Fight Club shows us the way. In order to blackmail his boss into paying him for not working, the film's hero (Edward Norton) throws himself around his boss' office, beating himself bloody before security staff arrives. In front of his embarrassed boss, the hero thus enacts on himself the boss' aggressivity towards him. The self-beating of the hero is equivalent to adopting the position of the proletarian who has nothing to lose. The revolutionary subject emerges only through this experience of radical self-degradation, when someone allows/provokes his employer to emptying him of all substantial content, of all symbolic support which could confer a modicum of dignity on him.

---

The proletariat already has nothing to lose, it doesn't require some sort of psychological "radical self-degradation" just awakening to the real-world degradation of man which IS capitalism...

I also read over that book by Zizek, in brief (it is a pity about the format though, with missing pages). I'm not sure why you linked it, though it is reasonably interesting, aside from the fact that it refers extensively to Lenin whom I'd advised you to read earlier. Zizek appears to consider Lenin relevant today, primarily because Lenin shattered the illusions of certain leftists that the perfect revolutionary moment would arrive if we all just wait for it and that such a revolution could be accomplished within the existing political system and utilizing the existing state apparatus; he'd like to see the Left wake up to this reality today and calls on the Left to fight all oppression, see capitalism as the problem, and abandon our attachment to the status quo. I agree with him on all these points and some others (though I hate his writing style and his emphasis on psychoanalysis of “key figures”). I don't, however, see how these points support your perspective which appears to be in favor of non-violent reformism within the existing system. If that’s a mis-characterization please take some of your next post away from discussing Fight Club and expand on your positions

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

1) The emancipation of labour can only be carried out by open class struggle (as opposed to "hidden" ones), since every open class struggle is a political struggle.

2) This open class struggle should be carried out by legal means where possible (not just voting, but preferrably anti-electoral protests and direct legislation through right of proposal and rejection), and by extra-legal means if necessary.

This takes into consideration ballot spoilage, "civil disobedience" a la MLK, illegal strikes, and more immediate measures to go along with the usual talk of taking advantage of opportunities presented by states on the verge of collapse (I'm obviously being euphemistic here).

3) Whether the outcome is peaceful or violent is entirely up to the class enemy (the rapid collapse of the Provisional Government vs. matching police brutality like in France, for example).

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Jacob Richter ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:
OK I read that section; much better in full (though the missing pages are annoying). Now I have a couple questions: What do you understand the pleasure of our subjection to be? How would we "actively assume" this pleasure? Speaking as a society of course, not individuals.

---

The best concept freudo-marxism (Marcuse) has to answer the fisrt question is repressive desublimation: In our society, the superego is now forming a perverse pact with the id at the expense of the ego: the latter is put to sleep, and the superego instructs the id to abuse of everything.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n06/zize01_.html

Actively assuming this situation means becoming revolutionary. To become a revolutionary subject, we should emptying ourselves of all stable ontological positivity. The potential of revolutionary becoming of a mass of people (a heterogeneous multiplicity) is obvious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Richter:
I think Marx's declaration regarding "peaceful means" and "violent revolution" needs to be updated, using the term class struggle more explicitly.

1) The emancipation of labour can only be carried out by open class struggle (as opposed to "hidden" ones), since every open class struggle is a political struggle.

2) This open class struggle should be carried out by legal means where possible (not just voting, but preferrably anti-electoral protests and direct legislation through right of proposal and rejection), and by extra-legal means if necessary.

This takes into consideration ballot spoilage, "civil disobedience" a la MLK, illegal strikes, and more immediate measures to go along with the usual talk of taking advantage of opportunities presented by states on the verge of collapse (I'm obviously being euphemistic here).

3) Whether the outcome is peaceful or violent is entirely up to the class enemy (the rapid collapse of the Provisional Government vs. matching police brutality like in France, for example).

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Jacob Richter ]

---

Jacques Rancière shows that Marx excluded the mass from the privilege of thought and art and formed an implicit alliance between philosophy and the repressive order of social hierarchy. In The Philosopher and his Poor (1983), Rancière makes explicit this objective alliance by studying the exclusivism and elitism of theory in the, supposedly emancipatory, writings of Plato, Marx, Sartre and Bourdieu.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Richter:
^^^ To me, that article reeks of incoherent, pre-post-modernist intellectualism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:
Benoit you haven't "debunked" Marx so much as you appear to think you have, with the posting of a couple articles comprised largely of psychobabble. I'm not a Marxist myself, though I think he had a lot to teach us, I just think you're mistaken to throw the term Marxist around like you've demonstrated it is a bad thing; maybe it is but you surely haven't provided the evidence of this that you appear to think you have.

---

quote:

---

At this point, not having demonstrated one of Marx's inconsistencies to you doesn't open the door to your violence against the state.

---

So the state should have a monopoly on violence? Violence it uses to crush opposition to what? To the state? No; to the class wielding state-power. We know which class holds state power in Canada. What you are really saying is that the rich have a monopoly on violence? Not so; they may have a monopoly on everything else but the violence of their state to oppress the poor, to oppress minorities... that must be fought against. So you see the door is open; but it wasn't me who opened it, it was the rich themselves when they took state power as an instrument of oppression to be wielded against the people. They can take away everything else but they cannot remove your power to revolt, to tear down their oppressive state; we have nothing to loose but our chains

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:

So the state should have a monopoly on violence? Violence it uses to crush opposition to what? To the state? No; to the class wielding state-power. We know which class holds state power in Canada. What you are really saying is that the rich have a monopoly on violence? Not so; they may have a monopoly on everything else but the violence of their state to oppress the poor, to oppress minorities... that must be fought against. So you see the door is open; but it wasn't me who opened it, it was the rich themselves when they took state power as an instrument of oppression to be wielded against the people. They can take away everything else but they cannot remove your power to revolt, to tear down their oppressive state; we have nothing to loose but our chains

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

---

The master-slave relationship was introduced by Hegel well before Marx, and the monopoly of state on violence was introduced by Hobbes well before Hegel. Contrary to the analysis of Hobbes and Hegel, the class analysis of Marx is useless for understanding our time. The world is now again dominated not by a class but by a few families among which count the Desmarais family. What they try to monopolize is the power of media and what the people has to lose are their TV chains (for watching baseball and the like entertainments). The good news is that no violence is needed to change all that: Conrad Black has been put in jail in an anti-competition investigation by only 12 randomly-chosen people DELIBERATING.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

quote:

---

The master-slave relationship was introduced by Hegel well before Marx, and the monopoly of state on violence was introduced by Hobbes well before Hegel.

---

Okay. Why would I care about that?

quote:

---

Contrary to the analysis of Hobbes and Hegel, the class analysis of Marx is useless for understanding our time. The world is now again dominated not by a class but by a few families among which count the Desmarais family.

---

Capitalist accumulation and concentration of wealth; we've had capitalism as our world-system for some time now, the decreasing size and increasing influence of the rich class is expected, it certainly doesn't eliminate class difference (in fact it brings them to the fore). No need to fall into conspiracy theories about specific people or families, if it wasn't them, it'd be someone else; its a class issue.

quote:

---

What they try to monopolize is the power of media and what the people has to lose are their TV chains (for watching baseball and the like entertainments).

---

Um, thats an incredibly simplified view; yes, the rich control the media but breaking from our indentured servitude requires more than turning off our TVs (although that could certainly be a positive step).

quote:

---

The good news is that no violence is needed to change all that: Conrad Black has been put in jail in an anti-competition investigation by only 12 randomly-chosen people DELIBERATING.

---

Whoop-dee-fuckin'-doo. How did Conrad Black being put in jail help anything???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:

The master-slave relationship was introduced by Hegel well before Marx, and the monopoly of state on violence was introduced by Hobbes well before Hegel.

---

The rulers always claim a monopoly on violence. This began a long time before Hobbes saw the light of day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

The rulers always claim a monopoly on violence. This began a long time before Hobbes saw the light of day.

However, I too think this thread's quality of life is such that it should be terminated

---

Hobbes was the first to see this monopoly on violence as the product of an implicit social contract.

Any on-going thread however poor is the surest indication that peace is prevailing over violence.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]