Apocaloptimism

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.