The Isocracy Network

Just as 2011 will be remembered as the year of ongoing Arab spring in that part of the world, for the advanced economies the equivalent will be the Occupy movement. Inspired by the Spanish Indignados, and initiated by the Adbusters group in the Anglophone world, the movement spread to some almost one hundred cities around the world.

Whilst a multi-faceted movement it was most certainly an outgrowth of the global financial crisis of the late 2000s. More specifically however it was a condemnation of the extensive use of corporate welfare (for example in the U.S.) as a means to stablise the economy during that period with the recipients simply using this public money to improve their own financial situation, especially when matched with austerity measures to make up for the shortfall in public finance.

An understandable slogan that has resulted from this has been the comparison of the "99 percent" versus the "1 percent", along with the recognition "We are the 99 percent". There was anger at the rise of the income share of the wealthiest 1 percent of households and their political control ("Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%). Whilst it is theoretically possible to increase to increase the income of a small group without upsetting the overall distribution (the Gini coefficient), this has not occurred. Overal inequality of wealth in the U.S. and China in particular has increased significantly in the past thirty years, with the UK and India also having notable recent increases.

Thus the Occupy movement was, quite sensibly, founded primarily on moral messages. Not only was there an argument of responsibility ("those who cause the problem should pay for it"), there was also a utilitarian ethic ("people should contribute according to ability"). For as much as one provides a detailed analysis of the economy with carefully grounded reasons backed by strong data, the emotional and objective reality was that people were hurting and there was a breach of a sense of fairness. It is that which inspires public action.

As participants would know the forces of the State came down hard on the Occupy movement when they could, despite a commitment of non-violence by the movement. Whilst brilliantly organised through new social media, a strength of Occupy in the public space was the use of decentralised and participatory democracy in managing local events.

In the wake of the occupations there have been, as expected, numerous articles on what the next step should be. Some have argued the need for concrete demands", others the need for the occupiers to become entrenched into the mainstream progressive organisations (and vice-versa). Whilst both these propositions are completely correct, there is also a need to look at why the Occupy movement eventually tapered. For as much as it to did generate interest and alter the political discourse for a while, the movement is essentially over for the time being. The question remains "why"?

The occupation of public space could only be maintained in the longer term if there was a genuine mass public participation orientated towards the reorganisation of society (the last chapter of Arendt's classic "On Revolution" is particularly illustrative of this need). Simply put, the political situation had not yet reached that level. Under these circumstances it was inevitable that the conservative argument of "You've had your protest, now move on" was going to gain traction. A related response was the attempt of some to turn the tactic of occupation into a principle, the "Occupy Everything" approach (there is an ironically entitled online journal of this name. In the long run, this aided critics of the movement as it increasingly detracted from the strongest message; the movement wasn't about the occupation of public spaces, it was about inequality, the mismanagement of the economy, and the robbery of public wealth.

I make this submission in relation to the recommended terms of reference if the Independent Media Inquiry (http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry).

There is increasing concern, based on recent experiences in overseas media, that a focus on media standards and organisations is required.

It is my considered opinion that Australia does not have effective processes to ensure that illegal or highly distorted media activities occur. The media does not always operate in the public interest, but rather presents highly partisan, politicised and often plain inaccurate coverage of events. Media regulation appears to be implemented quite selectively with minimal attention given to online publishing.

Strengthening of media regulation, primarily by an single independent media with statutory authority rather than industry-funded regulator (the Australian Press Council) and by strengthening the requirements for truth and public interest in media will greatly assist the process.

By regulation complaints submitted by members of the public on media issues should come with reduced and minimum response times. Further, when corrections are deemed necessary they should be placed quickly and with equal prominence to the original report. Such a regulation should apply to all media.

By regulation a journalists, editorials and publishers code of practise can be established with a clear commitment to media freedom within the limits of truth. This should be in addition to the current, and often ineffectual, voluntary codes of the Australian Press Council and the Media Arts and Entertainment Alliance. Such a regulation should apply to all media.

I will cite the following as examples of problematic media behaviour from just the past two months.

Three weeks ago the minority Federal government in Australia passed a historic broad-based carbon pricing bill through the House Representatives. The bill is not yet law, but it is certain to pass the Senate in the near future and will then find its way into the statute books. Under the legislation the 500 biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, some sixty percent of emissions, will pay an initial permit price of $23 per tonne which then be determined by market value in the future. Much of the cost will, of course, be passed on to consumers (who respond with purchasing changes) and there is a comprehensive package to compensate low-income earners and pensioners etc, along with substantial tax-breaks and a very significant increase in the tax-free threshold. Four million households will be better off after compensation, six million will be about equal, eight million will receive partial compensation and seven hundred thousand households will receive no compensation for the price rises. Average households will pay an extra $9.90 per week while average assistance will be $10.10 per week.

The legislation was passed after several years of debate on the issue; prior to the 2010 election the preceding Labor government has attempted to introduce a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which was also an emissions trading scheme, but with some significant transitional subsidies, leading to criticism from climate advocacy groups and the plan eventually being shelved. After the passing of the current legislation, the opposition leader has made a "pledge in blood" to repeal it, a very improbable proposal. The following represents a review of the carbon pricing scheme, its relative effectiveness, its relationship to social justice issues and the political issues it has raised. Before that however a brief review of the science is required.

John Gilbert "Jack" Layton was one of the most highly regarded progressive politicians in Canadian history. When he died on August 22, what followed was a massive outpouring of respect from different categories of citizens. Torontonians remembered his time on the city council, where he led New Democrats and independents to a controlling presence in the 1988 elections. Canadians definitely remember him from this past 2011 federal election; he led the New Democrat Party to 103 seats, more than double its previous high, and the NDP toppled the Liberal Party to become the official opposition.

What truly captures the wideness of respect for the man is the behaviour of opponents upon his death. Layton was given a state funeral, something never before afforded to any opposition leader who had not been a former Prime Minister. Rob Ford, long-time city council antithesis who is currently Toronto's Mayor, made what might be his first speech that didn't manage to grievously offend progressive Torontonians. This statement from a friend's Facebook feed sums up a more grassroots-level opinion on the matter: "RIP Jack Layton ... As a thorn in the side of my conservatives ... I would rather have won the battle at the polls rather than have mother nature intervene ... He was one election away from toppling the conservatives".

It might be hyperbole to say that he would have toppled the federal Conservatives in four years' time. However, Layton was a charismatic and resourceful political leader. His last big victory indicates such: the biggest gains were made in Quebec, where the NDP traditionally sees little success. This leap was a continuation of a previous election where he brought the seat numbers within six of Ed Broadbent's previous record. One might ask how a politician can become so effective, and the answer is found in his history and life.

Three years ago Andrew Bolt, a political columnist for the Herald-Sun, ran a 'blog article entitled "The Worst Ten Warming Predictions". It is opportune to take stock of the predictions and to illustrate how the debate can be unreasonably skewed by those who are unfamiliar with the scientific method or are politically partisan.

This response will go test Mr. Bolt's claims point-by-point.

1. OUR CITIES WILL DIE OF THIRST

Mr. Bolt selects a number of comments by Professor Tim Flannery concerning the status of water supply in dams. For example in March 2008: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009". Flannery made this comment in a very brief interview in the March 2008 of Jetstar magazine. In response, Bolt points out that Adelaide's reservoirs were 75 per cent full at the time of writing.

Bolt also criticised Flannery for saying "water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months". This is actually a truncated quote from his editorial in New Scientist. The remark was actually for Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane. As evidence against Prof. Flannery's proposition, Mr. Bolt points out "its [Brisbane's] dams are 46 per cent full after Brisbane’s wettest spring in 27 years." etc.

Bolt he hasn't given sufficient (indeed any) consideration to the fact that Flannery's remarks are guarded propositions; "may run out", "possible in as little" etc. Scientific statements should always be expressed in this form as it deals with trends and other variables may be introduced (such as the introduction of a desalination plant). Knowledge, at least to those who know that they don't know everything, is tenuous.

Further, in seeking to counter Flannery's claims, Bolt cherry-picks particular examples, rather than using trends, a tactic typical in political rhetoric. He points out that Sydney's dams at the time were 63% full after a particularly wet June. He does the same with Brisbane which had the "wettest spring" in 27 years and that Perth had its wettest November in 17 years. Such instances are meaningless in themselves (as is pointing out individual particular hot or dry months); trends are what is is important from a scientific perspective.

Last weekend, 13-14 August 2011, witnessed the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Berlin Wall. It barely needs reminding that this was not a defensive or protective wall, designed to keep potential enemies out, but rather it was a prison wall, designed to keep a population incarcerated, to limit their freedom of movement. Like most walls, it wasn't particularly effective for the truly determined; during its short existence there were thousands of successful escapes, although there were also several scores of people being killed by DDR border guards in these attempts. What it did do however is create an environment where fear dominated. Prior to its implementation, fully twenty percent of the entire East German population had moved west [1]; the State had determined that this had been stopped. Does it need to mentioned that when the Wall came down people fled from the socialist (but dictatorial) East Berlin to the capitalist (but democratic) West Berlin and not the other way around?

Fascism is any political ideology that requires the suppression of individual or co-operative rights to collective ideals. This is evident in the symbolism of the "fasces" from which the name is derived; a bundle of individual sticks tied together, indicating authoritarianism and summary power. This contrasts with other social ethics, such as utilitarianism which, whilst based on a moral principle of individual liberty (as Benthem and Mill pointed out [2]), distributes felicity according to 'the greatest good for the greatest number' for specific situations.The example of utilitarianism is raised here because said ethical system is sometimes misrepresented by those ignorant of its basic precepts to justify the fascist reasoning of 'the suppression of the individual for the good of society'.

Instead of seeking to provide for the greatest number, fascism seeks to provide for the abstract ideal, the abstract 'bundle' against the real individual 'sticks' or their real collection. Sometimes that abstract ideal can be a race, or a nationality, or a class, or a particular State, or ideology, or Party, or Church, or religion. In the future we may even see particular corporations raised as the abstract ideal. It is against real individuals, and real co-operation between individuals (from which societies are truly born), and it is against liberty and democracy. Ultimately it is a fallacy of reificiation (or, as Alfred North Whitehead called it "misplaced concreteness"); it assigns a real status to abstract concepts and in doing so, suppresses those which are real. Who better to define it than Benito Mussolini himself?

"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." ("La dottrina del fascismo", 1932) [3]

O Rose thou art sick.
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night
In the howling storm
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.
(William Blake, 1794)

Social democracy is in crisis. Its officialdom, represented by Socialist International, won't publically state this of course. The leadership of the constituent members will put on a brave face when confronted with the proposition, alternating between flippant rejection or trivial claims of an electoral cycle. But more privately, or at the very best among its small class of theorists and intellectuals, they surely know the problem. All over the world social democratic parties are losing elections, and often dramatically. Even with the support of other, smaller left or environmental parties, there is a strong trajectory towards conservative or neoliberal parties, far greater than what has been seen for decades.

The Kolo, a folk dance practised among the Southern Slavs, involves several individuals engaging in synchronised steps whilst holding each other around the waist. Once upon a time, it may have served as an appropriate political metaphor of Yugoslavia for the people who practised it; Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Slovenes. Long forgotten was Tito's desire for Bulgaria to join with Yugoslavia to form a complete federation of the southern slavic people, a position strongly opposed by Stalin - and pivotal in the breakup in relations between the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia. Now, instead, the dead are many, and the degree of distrust between these different but similar nationalities will take more than a generation to repair.

The period of "Brotherhood and Unity", the slogan used by the Yugoslav Communist Party, came to a crashing end when Milošević's sought to centralise power in the federal system at a time when leaders of other republics were seeking more autonomy. On 23 December 1990, Slovenia held a referendum, which passed with 95% votes in favor of independence, with a turnout of 93.2%. On May 19, 1991 an referendum on independence for Croatia was held which received a 93.24% vote from an 80% turnout (many local Serbs - who constituted 12.2% of the total population of Croatia - boycotted the referendum). The prevention of Croatian Stjepan Mesić for taking the role of the rotating presidency in 1991 also proved to be a turning point. Shortly after this, on June 25, Croatia and Slovenia declared independence and the breakup of Yugoslavia began.