Does ‘Radicalisation’ have to be a Problem?
Often we hear in discussions of Islamic/clerical Terrorism and the far right that the problem is ‘radicalisation’. This now has an integral place in how people view political ‘extremism’. No doubt some political extremism is bad. There is no place for right-wing ethno-nationalism or fascism in Australia. And there is no place for religious terrorism. But radicalisation used to mean more than this. When Spartacus rebelled against slavery and forced gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome he was a radical in his time. So too were the early, revolutionary social democrats who critiqued capitalism’s exploitative nature; and well as its toll in exploitation and human suffering. And the anarchists in Spain who fought against fascism; and sought to build a co-operative economy.
Discourse on ‘anti-radicalism’ has the underlying narrative that centrist, capitalist neo-liberalism is the only legitimate choice; and all other choices are ‘radical extremes’. It poses as an absolute, and hence is anti-democratic in the final instance. Some would even call this scenario as ‘verging on the totalitarian’ (locked into an absolute system with no way out; and very little scope to even discuss or propose alternatives).
But remember that before the French Revolution democracy was barely heard of. And the French Revolution itself descended into Bonapartist dictatorship, but it left a lasting impression which led eventually to the ascendance of liberal democracy. That was progress for its time; but today subtle and not-so-subtle cultural manipulation has people denying their own interests in favour of capitalist Ideology. At the same time, we can view the Russian Revolution of 1917 in a similar vein as the French Revolution. It began with high hopes of equality and liberation; but under pressure from internal and external threats descended into the personal dictatorship of Stalin.
Similarly, though, as with the idea of democracy, the idea of socialism is relevant still. And we should not give up on the prospects of its future re-emergence. It resonates in a world where people continue to suffer exploitation and deprivation; and the system delivers waste, crisis, and instability. But the ‘left intelligentsia’ has all but given up on class politics; and somehow, we need to restore an ethical and social-scientific critique of capitalism and the class system. This does not mean we turn away from modern critiques of race and gender. It does mean we re-conceive of our responsibilities on the Left to lead struggles for change. The future of struggle is in our hands. We should also remember when people point to the ‘toll’ of socialism, that capitalism delivered two World Wars with tens of millions killed; and countless ‘interventions’ – also with millions of deaths. We can also consider Western Marxism – which made its peace with democracy, as well as avowed Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, Julius Martov and Karl Kautsky – who early on worried about the trajectory of the 1917 Russian Revolution.
So radicalisation does not need to mean senseless violence, religious intolerance and Terror without end. Radicalisation can mean questioning certain fundamentals of the socio-economic system. Critiques of gender and race were radical in that they challenged ground-in discrimination, oppression and segregation. But somewhere along the way the critique of capitalism and class was abandoned and does not even figure into the thinking of many self-styled radicals of today. Starting with the Critical Theory of Marcuse in the 1960s Leftists began to suppose the working class had been co-opted by capitalist prosperity. Hence Marcuse turned to a ‘Great Refusal’ from those at the margins to challenge capitalism. Hence race, gender and sexuality gained a new sense of importance. For a time, students were also central to this New Left. And though Marcuse retained a critique of capitalism (and remained a revolutionary), many of those who followed refused ‘Grand Narratives’ – which in practice meant it was ‘unthinkable’ to propose a large-scale alternative to the existing systems.
The socialist Left currently occupies a similar position to that suffered by democrats between Bonapartism and the end of the First World War – which saw widespread embrace of liberal democracy in an effort to blunt the challenge of socialism in the wake of unimaginable slaughter. The Great Depression also saw an ascendance of socialist ideas in response; but polarisation in the context of Cold War saw their widespread stigmatisation and abandonment. Especially in the US in the wake of 1950s McCarthyism and the decades which followed.
Today there is an opening for a ‘new radicalism’. Modern capitalism leaves millions struggling amidst a precarious existence – with inconsistent and exploitative labour. Housing is widely unattainable and many struggle to subsist amidst inflation, and the use of interest rates (as opposed to tax for instance) to contain that inflation. The wage share of the economy is at an all-time low (or at least is as low as in living memory). Many are expected ‘as a matter of course’ to commit to unpaid overtime. And many capitalist interests resist the necessary actions for neutralising climate change because it would impact on profits.
Amidst all of this, also, there is an attempt to divide middle- and higher-income workers from everyone else. Social Democratic and Labour Parties do not talk much about class inequality anymore; but governments of all stripes preside over a flattening of the tax system, the extension of user pays, and labour market bifurcation with declining labour market regulation and declining union organisation and militancy. Some very-well paid workers comprise what Marxists once called a ‘labour aristocracy’, living in relative material privilege.
It figures we cannot always take everyone with us, and we cannot stop capitalists playing ‘divide and conquer’. We need to deal with this without giving up and abandoning our values. Almost no-one points to the problems associated with all this; especially so-called ‘Third Way Centrists’. Into this scenario socialists could readily propose an alternative. Beginning with the restoration and extension of the social wage and welfare state; and leading to a democratic mixed economy where co-operative and government enterprise rise to new prominence – also providing competition which counters capitalist monopolism or collusion. Also, we could do with re-regulation of the labour market at the lower end. This would be the beginning of a long-term struggle to improve society and end waste and exploitation.
Therefore, we need to begin to question whether ‘radicalisation’ is always a bad thing. There is a liberal-capitalist hegemony; but it is one which is not afraid to abrogate its essentials (eg: freedom of assembly, association and speech) when powerful interests are threatened. And it occupies an economic space ‘that is not to be questioned’ but comprises a neo-liberalism which could itself seem ‘extreme’ if compared with the assumptions of the pre-Thatcher and pre-Reagan world.
We need to challenge the fundamentals of this social and economic order if we are to rekindle hope of a better world. Hopefully there will be a realisation that the radicalism of a revived revolutionary social democracy (and other associated movements) is not a threat to liberties, but in fact may comprise the very movements which will save them. Most importantly this ‘new radicalism’ must involve a movement which mobilises from below; and attempts to construct what Gramsci would call a ‘counter-hegemonic historic bloc’. This means organising at all levels to challenge capitalist power and Ideology in social formations, popular culture, workplaces and even the State itself. And even where such a bloc is not mobilised or coherent enough to take State Power; the mobilisation itself will affect public and popular discourse; and this will influence policy.
But this is all predicated upon a rejection of the hegemony of neo-liberal ‘Centrism’ and the realisation that radicalisation is not always such a bad thing. We can change the world, but it all starts with a rejection of the ‘Common Sense’ that ‘There Is No Alternative’.
This article was originally published on ALP Socialist Left Forum.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
29 comments
Login here Register here-
uncletimrob -
Lyndal Breen -
andyfiftysix -
K -
Steve Davis -
B Sullivan -
Caz -
New England Cocky -
Byron -
Florence Howarth -
leefe -
Clakka -
andyfiftysix -
Phil Pryor -
Clakka -
Tristan Ewins -
Andyfiftysix -
Clakka -
andyfiftysix -
Mark Shields -
Mark Shields -
Mark Shields -
Mark Shields -
Roswell -
Zathras -
Roswell -
andyfiftysix -
Tristan Ewins -
Tristan Ewins
Return to home pageThe short answer to your header question is “no”
Many people thought I was radicalised back in the 1970’s/1980’s due to my sincere and vocal opposition to our involvement in the Vietnam war and the continued building of hydro schemes in Tasmania where I lived at the time.
It did not lead me to violence of any sort, but along with my upbringing had a huge effect on my political leanings, and what I believe society should be like.
Have I been proven to be misguided on these and other issues that I have stood up for? I think not.
The term “conscious-raising” was one used by feminists in the 70s. It sounds a bit less scary than “radicalisation” but really meant the same sort of thing. Bringing people to awareness of what is creating the problem – inequality, religious discrimination, etc- is an essential part of bringing people together to combat any problem. You can’t resist until you recognise there is a problem.
i must be a radical. I dont want wholesale revolution. I just want the people in charge to do things that are beneficial.
That means i have to break “Common Sense’ that ‘There Is No Alternative’”.
I dont want to be ruled by ideology of any persuasions.
If the government says we will look after the sick, i dont expect a labrinth, i expect a doctor to be in attendance asap.
If the government says it stands for freedom, why are so many whistleblowers threatened by legal actions.
If there is a natural disaster, i expect the PM to come home asap, not stop over in Hawaii as if nothing is happening back home.
I then expect plans to be made to develop an emergency response system that is better than world class. Nor a PM whose first reaction for requests for help is to say..”not our job” .
Turning refugees away or putting them in “gaol” at great cost is such a blatant waste of human resources and precious government finances……..as if that was really an issue.
I dont expect fucketry like fruadband or power privatisation or even Absolutely dead dog shit statements like “EVs will take away your weekend.”
Being dicked around by the liberals encourages me to be even more radical.
So much money has been pissed up a wall defending the indefencible cultural BS by the liberals that they forgot to actually do their fucking job.
Lets fix what we got before ditching it all. It is fixable with good outcomes. But first those who wield the power have to admit the error of their ways. Could use a few tar and featherings to hurry stuff along.
Ahhh…. Some critical analysis. Tis such a shame we, as human beings need labels to explain simple concepts… and that language can be such a barrier to understanding and communication.
Status quo…. Some of the comments seem to be unable to let go that the LNP is no longer in charge. Forgive, never forget.
I do object to the rejection of “common sense”…. Afterall, it’s what common law was based on. Just because it’s been hijacked by lawyers (who charge a pretty penny for the privilege) does not mean it has little value… but then again… now it gets complex.
Do you know the one certain thing about revolutions? They always come round again…
Great article, thank you.
A radical root can be found on some types of plants. It is a major central root with minor roots radiating out from the main stem. Why the term radical has come to mean something extreme or bad in any way, I simply don’t know. It is just another example of the abuse of our vocabulary by constant popular misuse of words with complete ignorance or disregard of their original intended meaning.
Is it radical to expect a Labor government to adhere to Labor values?
Never forget. Remember the Warsaw Ghetto? Now playing in the Gaza Strip as the Netanyahu Nakba.
NETANYAHU INTENDS PALESTINIAN HOLOCAUST
George Orwell “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth Is a revolutionary act”.
To out of control manipulators, anyone speaking up for the right to be heard is a radical and needs to be put in their place. Anti-democratic forces build empires on lies and have no interest in playing fair with the public.
That’s why voting Liberal-Labor-Liberal-Labor is a flawed strategy.
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai has ideas of a bottom up revolution, though K makes a valid point that ‘revolution’ is good for wheels and going around and around. Rebellion has a better ring to what needs to happen. Anarchy is another good point of departure from the current pigsty of self-deceiving politics.
Dr Shiva’s describes how the few have enslaved the many and it is up to each one to exit the trap by educating oneself. The so-called elite want to control the swarm, the masses, by creating all kinds of infighting, fake narratives and ‘solutions’ that are anything but. Why entertain their deceptions any longer?
Stop voting LNP-Labor, see chart @ linkedin.com/posts/vashiva_the-policies-of-left-right-over-60-years-activity
Labor values? Are the values set in stone for all time? Do Labor values change & adjust for evolving community needs? Who decides what the values are? We could do with more explanation of what the values some want us to adhere to. Maybe a list of what some believe them to be.
B Sullivan:
As I was reading this I thought “Hope Sully doesn’t see this one because they’ll have a field day over the word usage.” And, sure enough …
Society changes. Language changes to keep pace. Learn to live with it. Or die mad about it, we don’t really care.
How many of the words in your post – and how many words in your normal vocabulary – have the exact same meaning they did when Modern English first evolved?
Personally, I appreciate having become more radical as I get older. One lives, one learns, one sees more and more of the problems in our society and the failures of the current systems and ideologies in fixing them or, indeed, even noticing many of them.
The Liberal / Labor, two-party democracy is a circus. Within it, why talk about a values differential, when it’s a battle of rhetoric and sophistry, a lawyered mangling of language aimed at a conveniently blinkered view of fairness in a bling saturated death cult system. A system designed to ensure perpetual abdication of individual responsibility.
Dr Tristan’s article is excellent. The obvious answer to his question is “no”. If the circus did not run on millennia of hocus-pocus, opaqueness and mangled loop-hole language and toadying, one might not be forced to endless protestations for reason and be named a ‘radical’ to have corruption and inequities eliminated.
Groucho seems to have said it right, “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”
K, common sense doesnt exist. What makes sense to Tony Abbott doesnt make sense to me. Get over it. Its a misconception that when part of the population believes something to be true that it makes common sense. 70million americans voted for trump, is that common sense being thrown around by that population? The only thing thats common is rules and regulations or the laws of physics. And lets face it , sometimes it makes no sense.
Byron and Clakka, i have to take issue with your assertions that voting lib or labor makes no difference.
There is a difference, the outcomes are just not to your time frames. Democracy here works as its designed to work. Its a fucked up design for sure, but it does do what the architects intended.
Now lets get real, labor struggled to get elected with a very progressive agenda. Now you want them to go all progressive and expect a different outcome to Whitlam’s? If labor gets elected for the next 3 terms, yes change will happen. Its that type of time frame. We already have a three level fragmented disaster of a system, lets not dilute the feds to a wet lettuce status.
Its like this, Shitty A gets elected with crap policies. At the next election, an alternative with good policies comes forward but as water turns to shit, Shitty A gets re elected. What lessons are learned?
Its not parliament thats demented, is us who vote in demented parliamentarians and then reward their fuck ups by re electing them.
For a progressive party to actually govern, they need to have confidence that they have a mandate to govern and not constantly looking over their shoulder. Fear of getting kicked out and being in the wilderness for another decade brings with it strange strategies. Whilst 30% of us are outright fuckwits and 30% are self centred, best that the rest of us make the most of whats at hand to convince the self centred that what we want is in their best interest. For this we need to hammer home how the libs ideology has screwed us all over. For the fuckwits, there is no redemption…..education is not the answer…..been there done that.
Radical comes from radix, a root (think radish) and so, if the root of the problem is, say, landlords and rents, shoot landlords, thus getting to the root of the problem. Traditionalist conservatives like flow, slow, not go, show. So, let us be radical here…actually. philosophical radicalism was strong in British 19C history and many so called conservatives were radicals. Easy? Yes, for politicians can be honest and dishonest simultaneously, can’t they. It’s as easy as virginity, once a good idea.
andyfiftysix,
Please pay attention if you are going to take issue and in so doing, make false assertions. I did not say, assert or infer that “voting lib or labor makes no difference.”
Kindest regards 🙂
AndyFiftySix: Even if you have to win over a ‘self-centered demographic’, tax policies which target the top 10% do not negatively impact on most people ; if you can communicate this message you could be ok. Funny how Hawke managed to sell wage restraint which saw lots of workers lose a significant portion of their income ; this wasn’t in many peoples’ interests. How do we know we can’t win on the basis of class interest? We don’t even try ; and haven’t tried in a long time.
Ok clakka, i put words in your mouth. But what other inference can I draw from your statement?
“Liberal/ labour……. Circus…” Inferring both play the game……inferring no difference. Seems a reasonable way to interpret your statement.
My arguement isn’t about what you said or didn’t say. If you take offence, I apologise.
My arguements is that it is worth voting labor, just don’t kick them out next election. Kicking them out plays right into the circus. Voting labor out just plays right back into rewarding fucketry at the ballot box. Only the voters can deliver the right message. Blaming labor for our own fucketry isn’t going to change anything.
Andyfiftysix,
Liberal / Labor was only mentioned as an attention getter, in the context that the article, as noted, was originally published on the ALP Socialist Left Forum. The essence is occurrences in any such two-party system (circus) within a larger dubious and presumptive political culture. And in response to Dr Tristan’s fine article only.
All around the world, regardless of rights and wrongs of the overarching political culture, within such binaries, language and ideas can and do get stuck in a narrow yin and yang. Thus the importance of the ‘radical’.
I’m not sure how your ‘argument’ (Liberal vs Labor) arose, it seems you introduced it, as it was not in Dr Tristan’s article nor my comment. Could it be that your interpretation arose from you being influenced by a narrow yin and yang?
In any case, I do not take offence. It’s all grist for the mill.
Strength to you. Regards 🙂
Clakka, i do read the articles first but when an idea strikes, i tend to go with the flow….lol
narrow yin and yan…….nah. I am looking at the big picture and how to make it work long term. Short term there is too much depressing ideology at play.
“But the ‘left intelligentsia’ has all but given up on class politics; ”
Why? Because the current Left-Wing believe that they have dismantled the Class System! But in fact have re-installed the Class System via means of Middle Class privilege, appropriation and private school entitlement!
The Extreme Left Wing is just as stupid as the Neo-Conservative bunch of idiots!
Does Radicalisation have to be a problem? I wish I could be a cool dude and say no: UNFORTUNATELY, MANY RELIGIOUS IDIOTS AGED UNDER 15 ARE NOW TRYING TO BECOME FACEBOOK BOMBERS but none of these idiots actually realise what they are fighting for!
If there is a God: you fucking idiots need to learn some manners!
“If there is a God: you fucking idiots need to learn some manners!”
Forgive me for detecting some irony, Mark.
Like the devoutly religious and the dedicated atheist, left and right wing radicals are just two sides of the same coin.
They tend to see things in terms of black and white with no shades of grey in between.
Neither see themselves as being radical and are probably incapable of making such a distinction.
There is a lot of truth in what you say, Zathras.
Mark shields i dont think there is a “left intelligentsia” for different reasons. Its got nothing to do with ” selling out” or dismantaling the class system.
Battles have been fort , some won and some lost. But you cant wipe out lived experience. Capitalism does have some benefits. Communism is dead and buried, socialism has lost the economic wars. The class system is non existant in australia. Its now a wealth divide.
“via means of Middle Class privilege, appropriation and private school entitlement” is not a product of left intelligentsia. Its a product of neo con policies and ideology. If trying to use a bit of logic and clear thinking is lefty, i will take that as a compliment.
The problem you have is accepting that many more people these days can think for themselves. We dont take crap from anyone. Same as there is no right wing intelligentsia that wins people over anymore. Its lost any credibility it ever had and have rented the building to ideologues.
My war is with the ideologues who have an absolute faith in their ideology despite the best scientific and lived experiences. To me they are the clear and ever present danger.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy to say ‘socialism has lost the economic wars’ ; there’s been a lot of defeatism since the fall of the USSR ; we cannot in short order achieve a socialist economy ; what we can do is reform the tax system ; improve wages and conditions at the low end especially ; bolster socialised health including medicare dental ; invest seriously in public housing to increase affordability and supply. All these we can do ; and in a way these are socialist policies which mitigate against the class system. There is still a divide between most people and the capital owning class which has most of the wealth, and owns most of the means of production. Defeatism is a feedback loop. Shorten almost won while arguing against negative gearing rorts and Dividend Imputation rorts. We need to engage in a political and economic tug of war ; changing the terms of debate and actually mobilsing people and giving them hope.
Revolutionary Social Democracy and Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism should not be put in the same category because they share a label of ‘radicalisation’. Zathras ; the logic of your argument could lead the the conclusion “there is no choice but the Centre”. And the Centre today is radically to the Right of what it used to be. This destroys democracy ; because there is little debate and little choice. What we need is what Chantal Mouffe calls ‘Agonism’. That is, a radical and democratic pluralism which promote real political debate and choice.