DIRECT DEMOCRACY, POPULAR STRUGGLE and the EUREKA REBELLION. : Melbourne Indymedia

DIRECT DEMOCRACY, POPULAR STRUGGLE and the EUREKA REBELLION.

"..the Eureka stockade was built by a numerous band of foreign anarchists and armed ruffians who had converted it into a stronghold". (The Age, 5thDec 1854)

"Get a tolerable young pig, make it stand on his hind legs, put on its head a cap trimmed with gold-lace, whitewash its snout, and there you have the ass in the form of a pig; I mean to say a "man," with this privilege, that he possesses in his head the brains of both the above-mentioned brutes." [Raffaelo Carboni - tried for high treason against the British Empire]

-------
Recently when I mentioned the launch of our new 'party' (Direct Democracy Not Parliamentary Rule) as part of our ongoing campaign - (Reclaim the Radical Spirit of the Eureka Rebellion!) - to a close relative they exclaimed.. "direct democracy? Why on earth would anyone bother going back to that idea?" Clearly he saw direct democracy as some form of 'regression' or obsolecent form of organisation which has been superceded by representative democracy. The reasoning is that representative democracy, because it's the 'latest' and dominant form of social organisation (of the last 200 years) is somehow superior. But this reasoning is itself based on certain assumptions and dependent on a certain functionalist worldview - 'progress', division of labour, the march of history and the 'evolution' of humanity (a worldview which is of course constantly reinforced by the 'free' media). But despite this it is a worldview which is increasingly questioned today by numerous free-thinking and visionary people - particularly in the light of world marketization and the 'grow or die' economy, with all the accompanying negative impacts of the environmental crisis, social fragmentation, individual alienation and atomisation.

It is then strange that some of those who view themselves as 'progressives' come to the depressing and fatalistic conclusion that representative 'democracy' and global marketization are somehow inevitable and unopposable, and so come to echo the words of Margaret Thatcher ("there is no alternative") or of Francis Fukayama ("the end of history"). The viewpoint of these 'progressives' is a paradoxical one because while it tends to see science and civilization as 'progress' it ignores the fact that change and social 'progress' (the social revolution) has itself come about by 'antisytemic' forms of struggle from below which have used direct democracy and direct action (the political revolution) as a means to forming a complete rupture with the existing order. The fact that some of these struggles have ended in representative 'democracy' is not a proof that it is a superior form of democracy - rather we could interpret it as simply the seating of a new set of elites at the table of power [1] (e.g. the French & Russian revolutions) or a capitulation to the dominant establishment worldview (as occured after the Eureka rebellion) - and therefor not really 'progress' at all. Seen from this perspective, representative 'democracy' - although in a sense an outgrowth of the original enlightenment project - has actually been a diversion from that project in that it has miserably failed to deliver by the standards of its own ideals (LIBERTY, equality, fraternity) and has simply resulted in a more clever and manipulative despotism. It has failed to re-integrate the individual with society or society with economy. It has failed to grasp that the social and the political revolution are in fact one and the same - ('ends' in themselves) rather than means to a new state of heteronomy. Rather than enhancing and expanding politics, education, culture, into the realm of everyday life of the everyday person, representative 'democracy' has reduced the citizen to a piece of 'livewear'[2], a mere consumer (of junk culture, politics etc), a unit to be 'micro-managed' and a passive spectator - a trend which, far from liberating, is increasingly taking on the appearance of a form of managerial technofascism.

Here in Australia as we have celebrated 'Eureka 150', (3 Dec 1854) we have observed the Spectacle of 'celebration' with numerous choirs and pompous ceremony - the predictable way in which the political elites and the corporate/government media have portrayed the Eureka rebellion as the "birth of Australian democracy", (the 'victory' which the Eureka rebels helped us all to secure!) - none of this surprising considering that it is the victors who are usually the ones who get to write history.[3] What they would like us not to consider is that perhaps they, as the inheritors of that victory (parliamentary rule) are simply the continuation of 'god, king and empire' and that in reality nothing has really changed. They would like us not to notice that they, as priviliged elites, do not (can not) serve 'the people' but in fact they are merely following the familiar pattern of colluding with that other class of ruler - the 'merchant enterpriser'.[4] They would like us not to question the increasingly authoritarian characteristics of their regimes [5] or the regressive legislation which is guillotined through the senate to enforce the expansion of the 'one-size-fits all' model [6]. They would like us not to notice that behind their benign face there is in fact an iron fist - or those who do notice it must be reduced to a state of paralysing conformity by believing that "resistance is futile". The comfortable and well-off inheritors of this sytem may feel a little uncomfortable at the thought of their own overthrow (however unlikely it may be) and resort to any tactics to prevent the rise of any viable alternative. They would at all costs like to deter people from even thinking about once again turning to direct action, direct democracy and solidarity as a form of revolutionary struggle and they would be particularly worried about 'sneaky' (strategic non-violent) forms which enter the mainstream, refuse to be marginalised, and might somehow subvert the 'official' view of either the past, present or the future. And finally, they must crush any inkling of the idea that the form of the struggle itself (direct democracy/direct action/ solidarity) could contain within it the actual 'seed' of the organisational form for a new type of society - a society where potential 'rulers' are unable to acquire concentrated power. Any such society is necessarily impossible because it would amount to 'anarchy'!

This is the reason why 'direct democracy' and the role it has played in history must be overlooked by 'experts' and it must be scorned and ridiculed as a serious alternative to parliamentary rule. The reason that it will be ignored and scorned are obviously because it could (if organised properly) pose a threat to the current order. Unlike representative democracy, which is manufactured to support the continuation of free-market authoritarianism - direct democracy is by nature libertarian and egalitarian because it is based on the idea of all members of the society having equal decision-making power - at the political, economic, and social levels. If such an idea had the possibility of becoming a viable project then indeed it might become increasingly appealing to at least a significant minority of 'average' people. It is no wonder then that, particularly in the privileged west, representative democracy is so heavily portrayed as the 'official' version of democracy - because it is in fact the democracy of rulers/empire and a convenient ideology of expansion under the guise of 'progress' and 'liberty'.[7] The fact that it takes nearly all power out of the hands of 'everyday' people[8] must be ignored. Instead we are told that we live in a 'free' society which is the 'best of all possible worlds' - a capitalist paradise of consumption, competition and mass-distraction where we don't need to worry... the 'experts' will take care of everything for us.

But to return again to the question - "Why on earth would anyone bother with direct democracy?" I would suggest that perhaps the questioner has become too cynical and narrow in their thinking and too dependent upon authority. Probably they also watch too much television. They have forgotten the lessons of history and that it is a natural human trait to struggle against oppression and towards that indefineable other, 'liberty'. Far from being 'realists', these ridiculers of 'utopian' alternatives are themselves utopian in the negative sense of the word - they would rather put their hope in a dead institution (parliamentary 'democracy' and the XXX party) and the impossible dream of returning to some form of socialdemocratic form of government, rather than face the "large and uncomfortable facts"[9].

What these utopian skeptics would suggest is to give up on 'foolish and impossible schemes' (like direct democracy) and instead suggest to "go and join the Labour party". What they tend to overlook is the fact that they live in a privileged western society which does not reflect the reality of most of the world. Perhaps they should have asked the question of "why direct democracy?" to the Korean farmer before he committed suicide at the Cancun anti-globalistion protests last year, or the struggling tax-resistance farmers movement in China who have built their own (alternative) institutions of mutual aid. They should ask anyone in the global south - Africa, South America, India, and numerous other places where direct democracy is being used as a form of both resistance and practical community organisation. Perhaps they should also have asked the question to the organisers of the Paris commune (1871), the Kronstadt rebellion, the Ukrainian Makhnovists, the Spanish anarchists, the Bolivarians, and finally (being the 150th anniversary of the Eureka rebellion) the Eureka rebels themselves - "why would you bother with direct democracy? WHY?" My own answer is simply that when people are given "no alternative" they resort to the democracy of the common people rather than to the democracy of rulers. Direct democracy is the democracy of revolution, struggle, resistance and freedom while representative democracy is the democracy of servitude and empire.

So, regarding the launching of our new political 'party' DDNPR I do have to agree, along with the skeptic - Yes, perhaps it is a stupid idea - perhaps it won't work, but at least we are trying to do something which will at the least bring change and expand debate. It is at any rate a symbol of resistance and solidarity with all the oppressed because we realise that our own freedom is somehow connected with the freedom of all as equals. Perhaps we are 'fools' - but I am also reminded of the words of Ghandi: "First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."

RECLAIM THE PAST - UNDERSTAND THE PRESENT - CHANGE THE FUTURE.

I can make no assumptions about history (or the future) except to try to learn about how others have struggled in the past - the Eureka rebellion was only a small rift in the history of empire - an embarrassment for the rulers - it is a rift we can further widen and encourage the disaffected to walk through. Many such 'rifts' have occured throughout history, the most successful attempt to date (Spain) had at its foundations the principles of direct democracy and a long period of building alternative (federated) institutions. (It is encouraging to see the resurrection of the CNT in Spain today). Of course we have no guarantee of either sparking a revolution[10] or of predicting its duration - but I think it true that unless we can build a new federated movement upon direct democratic principles which is actually able to challenge the current order, then it is not possible to come close to anything which remotely resembles "revolution" and even more impossible to sustain it for more than a fleeting moment. [11]

But regardless of this, there will always be those who will continue to resist/organise - not because they are 'utopians' but simply because they are very human --we do not consider ourselves to be of the State, the Corporation or any other dead institution - we are somehow 'other'. While we may not 'win' in the commonly held view, perhaps our victory will be in the struggle itself - in the midst of that struggle, in the feeling of solidarity and mutual respect, in the free organising through mutual co-operation we will find our own liberty and our humanity! That was something I strongly felt when I had the privilege to meet with 50 or so other 'ruffians' at Ballarat where we walked through the streets with our giant banner - "Reclaim the Radical Spirit of the Eureka Rebellion!" There were many honks of support from passing cars, smiles, waves, one woman gave us the thumbs-up and shouted "rebels yay!", shouts of "Eureka"! from schoolchildren playing in the schoolyard - people spontaneously joined in with us in our 10km march. Thanks to Joe, Steve, thanks also to the CFMEU for providing the breakfast! And thanks to the wide variety of people who came and shared their humanity with me. A great event, and a great project to keep building!
-------------------

[1] "Parliament is a King with six-hundred heads." (Proudhon)

[2] "all the technology of political control has three components, hardware, software and LIVEWARE (the human elements), which are all woven together to form manipulative programmes of socio-political control." (STOA, European Parliament)

[3] "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." - Orwell

[4] "He (the 'merchant-enterpriser') was not for an organization that should do no more than maintain freedom and security; he was for one that should redistribute access to the political means, and concern itself with freedom and security only so far as would be consistent with keeping this access open." [Albert J Nock, in 'Our Enemy the State'.]

[5] 'Challenging the Rise of Contemporary Authoritarianism'.
http://www.hrca.org.au/CCJP.htm

[6] see 'The Model' by yvgrvny - http://www.geocities.com/penguinpiglet/model.html

[7] "There is a single sustainable MODEL for national success that is right and true for every person in every society." (G.W. Bush)

[8] "Corporatist society has structured itself so as to eliminate citizen participation in public affairs, except through the isolated act of voting and through voluntary activities." [J.R.Saul]

[9] "At any given moment, there is a sort of all pervading orthodoxy, a general tacit agreement not to discuss large and uncomfortable facts." - [George Orwell]

[10] "Revolution is freedom in the crucible of facts - and lasts so long as freedom lasts, that is until others, taking advantage of the weariness that overtakes the masses, of the inevitable disappointments that follow exaggerated hopes, of the probable human errors and human faults, succeed in constituting a power, which supported by an army of mercenaries, lays down the law; arrests the movement at the point it has reached, and then begins the reaction." [Malatesta]

[11] "..organised antisystemic movements are needed to replace a system and that the majority of the population should have developed a clear antisystemic consciousness, through actually living within the institutions of a new society, before the actual transition to it takes place. History has taught us that this is the only way to avoid another totalitarian experiment." [Takis Fotopolous, 'The End of Traditional Antisystemic Movements and the Need for A New Type of Antisystemic Movement Today']

'We swear by the Southern cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties' - Eureka Oath sworn by rebel miners at Bakery Hill in1854 .

"Therefore, stand firm behing those who are in the van of the strife for a greater share of social, moral, civil and industrial freedom. Remember, liberty, and every principle of liberty, can only be maintained by sacrifice and suffering. It was the price of the few liberties remaining to us. As others bore pains and penalties to pass them down to us, so we must pay in kind to pass them to the sons and daughters of all men." Montague Miller, Eureka Stockade veteran and IWW member, Perth (Western Australia) 1917