Ah, now that's a new word for the day: Apocaloptimism. There was another core concept that was not
quite so new or catchy but perhaps more germane here: State capture. These were perhaps the two major themes of
discussion at the Canberra Conversations session at Smiths this Sunday
afternoon. It was the second of these monthly
sessions and continued the discussion of
problems of our current democracy. The
speakers at this session were Tim Hollo, well known Green and climate activist
and musician (from Four Play, a hip/modern string quartet) and Mark Spain, of the
Canberra Alliance for Participatory Democracy (CAPaD). I think the main argument was for Participatory
democracy. It's all the rage these days,
involving the public in community decision-making and taking on real influence
with the Teals and independents movements.
Cathy McGowan and Helen Hughes were specifically mentioned. Tim argued the case for our democracy being
broken, citing State Capture. That's a recent
concept (first used by the World Bank in 2000) which outlines a type of political corruption of democratic
processes, through money and influence and involvement. I warm to this argument. (Just read Ross Gittins in today's SMH: How
squabbling pollies let miners wreck our economy / Ross Gittins IN Sydney
Morning Herald, 17 Apr 2023). This
discussion was pretty bleak about democracy serving the people: enclosures of
commons "at extreme level(s)"; Integrity commission "just a tip
of the iceberg"; revolving doors and regulatory capture and more. Mark argued state capture was an ambiguous
term and preferred "control by powerful, moneyed interests". Yeah, nah.
Media, PS, governance "all taken". Amusingly this was visually proven with the
statement "the end of the Earth is easier to envisage than the end of
capitalism". Nice quote, that. And then an argument that socialism is also
just a state function, so both are equally bad, if I heard right. They argued for the reinvention of government
given the "complete failure of the system". The community needs to learn to "govern
itself", from local up, with "shared neutral abundance". Citizens are the ultimate decision makers and
there are four levels of action: 1/ personal ("business loves this
[approach]", agreed, and I'd argue as it also loves identity politics); 2/household;
3/ local institutions; 4/ changing laws-intentional change. Tim essentially confirmed
government by/of/for the people by suggesting consent can be withdrawn. There was talk of a society of 2m people in northern
Syria and how it self-governs as proof of consent as the determinant. And wisdom comes from diversity, and plenty
of mentions of privilege. As there are
nowadays. Just two questions in and Mark
was noting both questions were by men. Amusingly,
the most time-consuming of all questions (well, four questions in one with several
comebacks) was by the one non-Caucasian women who first-up noted that she was
the one non-Caucasian. How valuable are
stats when numbers are so small? There
were only 12 in the audience and 3 on stage, and not a particularly indicative
group and it was freely open and inviting to all, I would think, by its very
nature. Then a discussion of working
4dpw or 3dpw and allocating the other day/s to community and how that would reduce
mental health issues. And proof of the
failure of government, such as "many ministers are being misled by
advisers within the public service ... happy to put this on the record. I've seen evidence of this". A big challenge but probably reasonable. And ACT Labor captured by Neoliberal
economics. I've thought somewhat
similarly at times despite the tram. And
the "wellbeing commons" as the answer. Figuratively, "sharpen the bow of the
boat to cut through the water" meaning put good people into the bad
systems. And rather than "wellbeing
economics" we need "regenerative economics". And the "best at this are women from
LSE". They mentioned a name so this
comment was specific. Then compulsory
voting and a decent AEC as a problem, not because it's not doing its job (it
is) but because people too easily accept all the mess surrounding it given our
decent voting system. Voting is divisive
anyway, creating for and against groups that are committed to
disagreement. Voting makes for sides and
a fight rather than participatory, cooperative approaches. Then that hoary one "old white men voted
for Brexit". Well maybe, but as an
old white man I stew about being identified with support for Brexit. Then something about Bank Australia (presumably
with an alternative banking model) and the end of the word/world as we know it:
Apocaloptimism (if you give up you've definitely lost). So how did I feel in all this? It was all a bit over the place, big ideas, little
history, perhaps too local but obviously with hearts in the right place. In fact, I agree on state capture and neoliberalism
as key problems and that we are threatened with climate and nuclear and AI and other
apocalypses. I do get annoyed with the
generalisations, always about the other,
while you preen your own identity and broadcast your under-privileges. Often while ignoring what I see as the essential
disadvantage, poverty/inequality. For I
remain a bit old school, pre-identitarian, second wave feminist, democratic socialist. But this was not a session on identity. Its heart was in the right place, and the
discussion took it beyond what it probably sought. Although there was talk of growing your own
spinach, I'm sure they recognised they still want their tablets and mobiles,
and that requires more complex organisation than the local community garden. And I don't think they actually want to
discard government, but to make it more responsive to community (=the people)
and less captured by moneys and other forms of power. Good, most would agree. The session didn't stop for drinks and chat
and I think it may have suffered from that.
That informal chatter can be the most balanced and also the most testing. So, will I return? I guess it deserves another session even if I
left somewhat underwhelmed. As for the
attendance (15), wasn't it Lenin who talked of the vanguard? At least I learnt a very cool new word.
Canberra Conversations is a monthly political session at
Smiths, on the third Sunday afternoon of each month. This time, the guests were Tim Hollo and Mark
Spain.