Democracy is an ideal in struggles for global justice; it is something in whose name war is waged and states are invaded; it is a code word for capitalism and the market. Intense political theoretic debates currently surround ‘democracy’. What kind of democracy does Ruddism offer? What space is there for struggle and social movements? Does faith in democracy mean blind faith? __________ Thursday evening, 19th February Introductory event and social gathering. LATIN AMERICA: THE DIALECTICS OF DEMOCRACY & REVOLUTION Jorge Jorquera, Australian Centre for Human Rights Education, RMIT University The experience of previous revolutions suggests that popular democracy is as much a question of the culture of politics and revolution, as it is about the structures of government and state. Arguably the most distinguishing feature of the Cuban revolution has been the centrality of a critical pedagogy for citizenship education. The revolution now unfolding in Venezuela is likewise concerned: how to empower and mobilise its citizens to give meaningful content to the idea of popular democracy. A revolution is a struggle to go beyond the normal conditions for the reproduction of social life, an "adventure" in culture, as the Cubans say. This paper explores the dialectics of class, state, ideology and party as they protagonise the adventure of the new Latin American revolution. __________ Friday morning, 20th February 10.00am DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND THE ETHICS OF EXCLUSION In the spectrum of acceptable dissent in contemporary analytic political philosophy, “deliberative democracy” is often as good as it gets for the Left. With its emphasis on an inclusive politics, on reason giving, on dialogue, and on the need for a certain basic justice of social circumstances in order for the marginalised to be able to participate in dialogue, the deliberative democratic tradition takes up themes that once would have been espoused by socialists and other radical democrats. Some “postmodern” politics also converge on the goal of maximally inclusive deliberative processes. This presentation will explore the strengths and limitations of deliberative democracy, by highlighting the problem of inclusion/exclusion within democratic processes. Acknowledging the necessity of exclusion and confronting the question of its ethics may assist socialists and other leftists in reasserting the radical moment in a democratic politics. __________ Friday afternoon, 20th February The 2009 Hegel Summer School takes place during a profoundly important historical juncture, with opportunities and challenges before us that are unprecedented in the lifetimes of most. In the current period, the challenge for the academic Left is not how to lead, but how to augment real-world struggles for progressive social and political transformation; such an orientation being a mainstay of the Hegelian-Marxist tradition. With globalised radical capitalism in crisis, an examination of modern social democratic practice as the masking of capitalist social relations and political capture, which was the original intent of this paper, appears virtually redundant. The increasing prevalence of participatory-deliberative democratic state institutions is swiftly being exposed as a sideshow as demands for real social and economic solutions emerge. This, however, serves to underscore the central claim of the paper: that the contradictory capacity of state democratic attempts at co-option can only be meaningfully understood relative to the capitalist context. The first responsibility of the Left is to bring capitalist contradictions to the surface – not to camouflage them with claims that they can be resolved within capitalism. This paper will therefore reassert the Hegelian-Marxist critique of the social democratic project. It will do so in an effort to enliven a 21st century dialectical materialist critique of capitalism. We contend that political theorisation loses its meaning and value if not grounded in the experience of political practice. We also argue that any left vision that does not aspire to transcend capitalism risks redundancy or, worse still, limits the potential for real changes that are beginning to emerge. __________ Saturday morning, 21st February This paper examines the theoretical ideas of Friedrich von Hayek, arguably the key progenitor of the global economic orthodoxy of the last two decades. It assesses Hayek’s thought as he presents it: namely as a form of liberalism. Part 1 argues that Hayek’s thought, if liberal, is hostile to participatory democracy. Part 2 then argues the more radical thesis that neoliberalism is also in truth an illiberal doctrine. Founded not in any social contract doctrine, but a form of constructivism, neoliberal thought at its base accepts the paradoxical need to “discipline subjects for freedom”, however this might contravene peoples’ natural, social inclinations. The argument is framed by reference to Aristophanes’ great comedy, The Birds, whose off shore borderless empire ironically prefigures the dream of neoliberal social engineers, and their corporate supporters--a dream whose critical consequences the world is presently beginning to feel. __________ Saturday afternoon, 21st February Dr Geoff Boucher, School of Communication and Creative Arts, Deakin University Probably the most prominent Hegelian in the world today is Slavoj Zizek. In his most recent and theoretically sustained book, In Defense of Lost Causes (2008), Zizek lays down a fundamental challenge to the theoretical and activist Left today. In defiance of what he regards as the blackmail of political liberalism—“either liberal democracy or political totalitarianism”—Zizek calls for leftists to return to the radical heritage of communist politics. Democracy is fundamentalism, he proposes: in a classic instance of the “dialectical unity of opposites,” the liberal-democratic “end of history” and “New World Order” generates the political totalitarianism of fundamentalist terror as its repressed underside. The task of the Left is to hold open the place of a third alternative by boldly reclaiming the emancipatory moment in the radical politics of the twentieth century. But it is not just any part of the communist heritage that is to be rehabilitated. No, it is necessary to courageously accept that every revolutionary politics risks historical catastrophe; accordingly, the rehabilitation is of the catastrophic moments in the betrayed revolutions of the last one hundred years or more. This involves, it seems, a defense of Robespierre and the Terror, rehabilitation of Stalin, criticism of Mao for not going far enough, embrace of the dictatorship of the proletariat, advocacy of a police state equipped with a network of informers … It is time to call this by its correct name: rightwing bullshit. Note: We do not expect any further program changes, but should they occur, we will notify all registrants and also provide an update on this website.
|
|||