From: LeoCasey-AT-aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 17:38:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Questions About Radical Democracy


Carlos asks:
I also believe that the woman who Clinton wanted to appoint as
as a State Department head before Janet Reno is also a "radical
democrat".  Is this true?

Leo:
------
I am not sure who you are referring to. My best guess is that the person was
Clinton's candidate for the head of the civil rights division within the
Department of Justice, Lani Guannier (sp?). The other possibilities don't
make sense. Her candidacy was dropped like a hot potato by Clinton when the
Republicans went after her, accusing her of being a "quota queen" (note the
attempt to invoke the term "welfare queen"; she is a black woman) based on
some writings she had done on how to ensure meaningful African-American
representation in legislative bodies. The writings are collected in a book,
_The Tyranny of the Majority_, and involve some interesting discussions of
different mechanisms which could be used to ensure that a numerical minority
could achieve meaningful representation. I don't think that the work is
particularly radical, but it is certainly democratic, and addresses some
important issues concerning African-American political representation in a
racist society. David Plotke wrote one of the most interesting critiques of
it in a recent issue of _Dissent_, and then he and she had a little debate.

Carlos:
----------
What is in a nutshell, radical democracy?

Leo:
____
The political project which seeks to extend democracy to and deepen it within
all spheres of society. This project includes, but does not focus on in an
exclusive fashion, the traditional socialist and communist emphasis on the
labor movement; it would also incorporate other social movements of a
democratic nature, such as feminism, anti-racism, etc. It sees what is
sometimes called formal democracy (majority rule; minority rights of free
expression and conscience, due process, privacy and equality under the law;
the rule of law) as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the
achievement of radical democracy. It does not, therefore, envision a
transparent society of complete direct democracy (ie, soviets, workers'
councils, etc.), but a combination of institutions of representative and
direct democracy. While there are some basic principles held in common, the
political currents and actors who describe themselves by the term are a
fairly heterogeneous bunch. 

Within the Marxist traditions, there is a tendency to conflate political
projects (Communism/Socialism) and theoretical analysis (Marxism,
dialectical/historical materialism); it is important to distinguish them, I
believe, with respect to radical democracy . There are many different
theoretical analyses which would support a radical democratic politics, from
the work of Anthony Giddens to that of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe.
Much of the post-Marxist analysis dedicated to radical democracy has a very
substantial overlap with democratic thinkers who remain within the Marxist
tradition, like Antonio Gramsci and Nicos Poulantzas, but there are also some
crucial differences involving the primacy of class struggle in the Marxian
sense of the term.
 
Carlos:
----------
Is this an attempt to revive Deweyism of some sort?

Leo:
------
That is one of the theoretical and practical currents -- one would find it
prominent, for example, in the work of Cornel West, who considers himself a
radical democrat. But it is most definitely a critical appropriation of
Dewey, and it is not the only or even the most prominent intellectual strain.
It does seem to be gaining more influence, however.

Carlos:
---------
Are you familiar with the differiantiation between "liberals" and radical
liberals that Trotsky made while testifying during the Dewey's Inquire
Commission?  Does that, more or less, define what is the difference between a
"Democrat" and a radical democrat?

Leo:
------
Sorry, I haven't read it, so it would be speculative of me to comment.

Carlos:
----------
I ask these questions because I have no idea and I'm pretty         
interested in reading about.  Any book that you will recommend?

Leo:
------
I would be reluctant to recommend any specific text, if only because I think
that there is no definitive voice of radical democracy. For example, Stanley
Aronowitz would consider himself  a radical democrat, and although I find
some of his work very thought provoking, I -- and many other radical
democrats -- would disagree with his analysis of the "end of the work." I do
think that we are in the middle of some very fundamental economic changes,
and that industrial capitalism is giving way to a new post-industrial
capitalism (some called it post-Fordist), but I don't share many of the
particulars of Stanley's analyses of those changes. (I would love, however,
to have some dialogue on the list on exactly how different folks see those
changes.)



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------