We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Thursday, June 10, 2010

The Dictatorship of the Market (Part 3?)

from Socialist Project. Although it doesn't indicate that it is a continuation of an interview, it clearly is. Last segment was posted here on 6-5-2010.

Edward Lewis, of New Left Project, continues this interview with Colin Leys who is an honorary professor of politics at Goldsmiths College London, and former Professor of Politics at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada. The discussion centers on some of the themes from his recent books and their relationship to contemporary developments--mostly in the UK.
EL: ...it sounds like you’re essentially describing is a process whereby national democracy has dramatically been hollowed out and undermined.

CL: I agree completely with that and you're seeing it in the present election. It’s fascinating that these things aren’t being discussed. John Lanchester had a very good piece in the Guardian, saying that he was looking to the third television debate between the party leaders, which has to touch on the question of what they will actually do in the way of cuts. So far we’ve had a smoke and mirrors election, in which people are talking about fairness and change, and not discussing what they will actually do to reduce public expenditure. Already Britain is paying above the odds for borrowing, and this will get worse unless major cuts are made after the election, yet we’re having an election in which this can’t be discussed. It’s a very revealing moment of a general truth, which is that governments have to respond to the bond market, and yet democratically they’re supposed to be responding to voters. The interests of the two are at variance, and therefore during the election they don’t talk about it.