The Ethics of Protest and the
Ethics of Collusion with the Powerful
Recently, the political elite
in Spain revealed the extent of its respect for the grievances voiced by
the people when it ordered the police to finally clear the Puerta del Sol
Square. They clearly were not welcome – all those indignadas and
indignados who had stayed there, some of them since May 15. They were not
welcome because by their very presence they intended to highlight that
the populace is aware of grave problems, such as dire poverty of many retired
workers, and unemployment of almost one half of all job-seekers below
the age of 26. Unreasonable complaints? No. But nonetheless, they
were not welcome. And so the police attacked once again the peaceful young
and old women and men of the Spanish capital who had the courage to declare
openly that “they do not represent us.” And by “they” these protesting
people refer to the political class, los politicos, and specifically today
to the governing “social-democratic” PSOE that succumbs to the forces of
neo-liberal redistribution of publicly produced wealth. No, “they
do not represent us.” And the PP? Yes, they “won” the local elections in
May 2011, because many wanted to “punish” the PSOE, and because many others
– especially, the very committed, very well informed indignadas and indignados,
did not vote at all. They don’t leave us in doubt about this: the PP is
even worse than the PSOE. And the IU? A tame, toothless tiger… And the
trade unions? Giving in and giving in and giving in. No, they – the indignant
ones – don’t trust them any more. All those words. Those party programs.
Those broken election promises. Those declarations of support from the
left when, in fact, the leaders of the left seek their tactical agreements
with the PSOE and the unions, believing perhaps that pragmatism is necessary
and that what they do is a sign of such “necessary” pragmatism.
Even Giorgios Papandreou, in
Greece, may kid himself in this way.
Telling himself and everybody
else that “there IS NO ALTERNATIVE” to giving in to the demands of the
troika – the European Central Bank, the IMF, and the European Commission.
Well, the Kirchner government in Argentina had the courage to default on
the country’s debt, and to offer creditors one third of the sum owed, and
that was it. Why not return to the drachma? If Europe proves incapable
of real solidarity, a lot more of such questions need to be asked. Questions
that offer a true, truly global, cooperative perspective that abandons
and transcends the ethos of competition. Why not reorient the Greek economy
towards the Near East and West Asia, rather than Western Europe? Or better
still, cooperate with African countries, in a beautiful South-South effort
to attain sustainable development, by turning away from the egotistical,
exploitative North? Is it not true that attempts to create a modern industrial
base in Greece have been crushed in recent decades in almost all fields
except pharmaceutics, due to lack of protection against competitors in
W.Europe? Impossible to survive, to develop when encountering the onslaught
of companies in countries that enjoyed a head-start.
In Spain it was the property
boom that created illusions of “progress.” But like Greece and Portugal
and the Italian mezzogiorno, the country has not seen much real progress
due to the European Union. The coal mines, the steel industry of the North,
the textile industry of Barcelona – does any of it remain that is worth
speaking of? And what that is new and modern has replaced it as a noteworthy
industrial base? It is Germany, perhaps France, to some extent Belgium
and the Netherlands that have profited. No, not their population.
Merely their big corporations that suddenly enjoyed unhindered market access.
The European Union, the way it was realized, is a tool of redistribution
of publicly produced wealth. From the many to the few. And from Southern
member countries to those further North. A good reason, therefore, to ask
how we, the people, can reshape and rebuild this union.
At any rate, we, the people,
have started to wake up, to ask questions, to move, to take to the streets,
and to demand real change.
“They don’t represent us” – this
is not a denunciation of democracy. It is a demand, an urgent appeal, to
every one who has eyes to see and ears to hear. And it centers on the necessity
to create a democracy more worthy of its name: a better, more participative
democracy, that allows the common people to take part in the debate concerning
the immediate as well as the not the immediate problems we must face. And
there are many such problems. Are we not aware of climate change, of the
prevalent disregard for nature, for the ecological balance of the planet?
Can we deny today’s outrageous disregard for social justice, and the effective
blindless of governments and the wealthy in the face of hunger and dire
poverty (on a local, national and global scale)? Can we be in doubt about
the carelessness of the self-declared “elite” when we point out to them
our anger provoked by rampant mass unemployment and increasing exploitation,
and by the cynical devastation of of the lives of a large and increasing
number of working people – in both a pychological and physiological sense?
As we know, all of this is fanned, of course, by the relentless drive of
the top 0.05 or 0.1 per cent for maximum profit, an it is defended and
even encouraged by the dominant discourses in the mass media, by
the dominant ethics, so to speak – which have been contributing to this
climate of rugged individualism, of anti-social competition, a social darwinism
of the worst sort that is meant to make us bow to whatever pressure we
are subjected to while remaining mute in the face of every scandal we perceive.
Recently, a publicly venerated
philosopher was invited to preach in that highly symbolic locus of absolutist
power, the Escorial. I am speaking of Fernando Savater. He
made use of this opportunity to denounce today’s young people. He said,
in fact, “I have the impression that today’s youth accepts culture as totally
free-of-charge [gratis total], that the creators don’t deserve remuneration.”*
A remarkably open statement by
a well-fed, well-paid, saturated writer, an academic with a safe job who
defends the status quo.**
In fact, I have always thought that this quarrelsome focusing on “intellectual
property” somehow lets us forget that he who gains a new insight or attains
a new knowledge loses nothing if he shares it with others. It is in fact
a joy to share, and this sharing is the main justification of learning,
and of philosophy. That the philosopher must eat, in order to live, is
of course a truism. But let society at large look after that. Isn’t there
a community honored with his presence? Or at least a ministry of culture,
if no better solution can be found? In Spain, as I said, nearly one half
(45 per cent) of all young people are unemployed, according to the official
statistics. Those eager to read should be able to have access to books
(and they even should own books) free of charge. Instead, the price of
books has seen a staggering upward development in the last 40 years. What
might have cost the equivalent of 50 or 75 cents in the 1960s easily
costs 12 or 20 Euros today, and what then would have cost 5 or 10 Euros
today approaches or tops 100. At the same time, because corporations pay
hardly any taxes and because public coffers are almost empty, public libraries
are being closed.
The philosopher from San Sebastian,
Señor Savater, has something more to tell the young people of Spain,
and the middle-aged and old people as well, who joined the protesters on
the Puerta del Sol Square and on many other squares in many other towns
in Spain. Feted in the Escorial, a place more symbolic of power than of
culture on account of its history, Señor Savater tells them that
they are practically idiots because they don’t (he seems to assume) understand
the fine print, the formalistic underpinnings of the democratic game, i.e.,
that “the politicians represent us” indeed – because it’s a representative
democracy, because we can vote (or abstain), and the vote is counted, and
then, after all, there is a result. There are those elected representatives.
And whether they cheat us and lie to us and practice collusion with big
business, and bow to the diktat of financial markets, or not – they are
our representatives. We, the people – or at least those 50 or 60 or in
some countries close to 70 per cent who still vote – have elected
them. Yes, true enough. And those 30 or 35 per cent of the electorate
(a smaller percentage, of the entire populace, of course) who voted for
the party in government, often with qualms because they told themselves
they were opting for “the lesser evil,” are therefore those who represented
us, the people, by determining the party whose leaders will rule us as
they think best. The minor figures seated in parliament as members of the
victorious party will of course be good boys and gals, dancing to the leadership’s
pipe, and so all is well and very democratic.
Is it surprising that an increasing
number of people in Europe, and not only in Europe are fed up with this
game? Fed up with what amounts to a mere pretention that the people is
Señor Savater of course
knows that things are not perfect. “A perfect democracy?”, he asks.
“Of course it doesn’t exist. But what is [ever] perfect? Nothing is perfect
[…]” This is wonderfully philosophical.
Because nothing is ever perfect,
leave things as they are. Derrida was a little bit more critical when he
spoke of democracy as an asymptotic, unfinishable process. We do not have
to believe in ultimate, static perfection in order to demand democratization,
steps in the good and reasonable direction, away from the present malaise.
Like Popper, that arch-conservative,
Savater speaks of “the enemies of the democratic society.” And it seems
that he has not those in mind who rely on secrecy, intransparency, surveillance
of dissidents, backroom decisions, collusion with media czars and generally
big business. No, he seems to have in mind the protest movement, the indignant
ones who demand “real democracy, yes!”
Today, as climate change accelerates
and threatens to become irreversible, as the attack on social advances
of the populace picks up speed, whereas widespread distrust in politician
rapidly undermines their legitimacy, Señor Savater tells us, that
“Right now, the major value, the great virtue, is patience.” We wonder
who will listen to him? The pensioners who see their meagre pensions eroded?
The young who cannot find a job? Or the investors, or S&P and the others
who are at the forefront of the attack on the “creditworthiness,” as they
call it, of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece? We can rest assured,
the media – among them El País – will continue to offer him a forum,
the political class will see itself justified by a “renowned philosopher”
and, if we don’t encourage them, perhaps this and that poor old pensioner,
this and that young woman or man looking in vain for a job, will fall silent
and submit to what is not fate but the outcome of a political and economic
game that never was and never will be fair.
Perhaps the economic game and
the democratic game could never be kept separate. The “elite” doesn’t keep
the two spheres separate, so why should we, the common people? We must
continue to ask for sweeping change, in both spheres. Perhaps Savater was
right in linking his defense of culture as a good for sale to his defense
of the democratic game as it is played today. We must link that, too, friends,
but change the evaluation. What Savater critiques is what we embrace: A
free culture that is not commodified. What he applauds, we critique: A
representative democracy that effectively disempowers the people.
* This quote and the following quotations have
been translated by me. For the Spanish quotes, see: Juan Cruz, “Que ‘Etica
para Amador’ en 2011?”, in: El País, 14.7.2011, S.36-37.
** Of course, Savater is free to disagree with
the indignados. As a liberal with social-democratic as well as “free-market”
sympathies, he is however hardly the unbiased ethical philosopher some
take him to be. Of course, it is easy to agree with his anti-militarism.
His critique of nationalism deserves sympathies. But he was always unfair
with regard to one of the few organizations that put up decisive resistance
against the Franco regime and that was cunningly marginalized by the EU-
and US-engineered “transition,” a fact which is at the root of its later,
in many ways irrational and despaired reaction. And he fails to understand
socio-cultural resistance against the subversion of regional cultural identities
by the centralist state and by the forces of globalization. His fear of
totalitarian tendencies has produced blind spots. He does not recognize
the totalitarianism of the market and its radical advocates, nor that of
the market-driven mass media today.
Democracy real YA!
Democracia real YA!
'Indignant' Protests Heat Up Election Campaign"
(IPS news net, Oct.4,2011)
Demonstrators Marching to
Brussels to Protest Effects
of Crisis" (IPS news net, July 30, 2011)
Drago, "Spain: Streets Paved
with Evicted Families" (IPS, Oct.7, 2011)
GREEK SITES (HELLAS)
the general strike (Oct.19-20,2011)
on the general strike
Athens (Greece) indymedia
POESY'S CALL TO JOIN
THE GENERAL STRIKE
Argyros on the general strike
Real.gr, Oct.20, 2011)
Occupy Wall Street
We Are Change
decentralized solidarity movements
Occupy Wall Street protests
Z Communications AND Z mag
Occupy Wall Street Entreaty &
Spanish Anarchists Interview
(Z Communications, Sept.2011)
Local to global.org
Schneider, "From Occupy
Wall Street to Occupy Everywhere"
(The Nation, Oct. 31, 2011)
GERMAN LANGUAGE SITES
of the world, rise up"
Aufruf von K21 zur Demo am 15.Okt.
Echte Demokratie jetzt
Echte Demokratie jetzt
Aufruf zur Demo
am 15. Okt.
zur Demo am 15.Okt.2011
Students in Chile are protesting
net, Oct.20, 2011)
Al Ahram Weekly
Arab Spring and the crisis of the elite"
Fouad Najem, "Forbidden"
Support Julian Assange
Forum Social Mundial