The purpose of the protests

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Until recently, countries like Turkey and Brazil used to be known mostly for their rapid economic development. They are called the emerging economies for a reason. And then something unexpected happened. The protests at Taksim started, and it became clear to everyone that they were not just about the Gezi park and the plans to turn it to a shopping centre. The deeper reason was that there was a lot of public discontent piling underneath the surface for quite a while.

The situation in Brazil is similar. The protests there started with a minor issue, the 10% increase of the prices for public transport. Except, the protests continued long after the price increase had been cancelled. Then what are these protests really directed against, we might ask?

First of all, it is important to point out that the protests in Turkey are not just limited to being a reaction of the secular society against Islamist authoritarianism. The core of the problem around which everything gravitates is the relation between authoritarian Islamism and the free market, i.e. the effects of societal change on economic development. This relation makes the Turkish protests particularly intriguing, because the protesters have obviously realised at an intuitive level that the free market and religious fundamentalism cannot co-exist peacefully for too long. And the fact that these two phenomena seem to be walking hand in hand at the moment, is an indication that something wrong is going on in the Turkish society. And it causes concerns that this symbiotic relationship between democracy and capitalism will not be able to survive very long.

Of course, there isn't a single cause underlining all these protests around the world. Not even within the same society. But what all these people are feeling, certainly is a deep sense of dissatisfaction and discontent, and that is the uniting factor behind these protests, at least for the time being. The journalists and intellectuals in Turkey itself have, for the most part, failed to interpret the protests adequately. What is this struggle actually fighting against, they wonder? Is it against the corrupt authorities? Or the authoritarian Islamist regime? Or the gradual privatisation of the civic society?

But here perhaps we could recall the Marxist notion of totality. In this case it relates to the totality of global capitalism. What unites the various protest movements is the reaction to capitalist globalisation. Granted, not one of these movements has been reduced to a single-topic focus. All of them are actually a specific combination of at least two major issues, if not more. For example, the fight against corruption and ineffective government, and a reaction to capitalism. On the other hand, there are ideological elements as well, and demands for "more democracy", whatever that means, and even calls for a total overhaul of the party system - a process that might have already begun in some of the Nordic societies.

And this bears an obvious similarity to OWS. Among other things, it united two main motives: first, the discontent with capitalism as a system, and second, the realisation that the institutionalised form of representative, multi- (or two-) party democracy is no longer capable of putting barriers to the excesses of capitalism. Or in other words, there is a need for a new type of democracy that would reflect the new social and economic realities in a more adequate way.

But, just because the true reason for these protests is rooted in globalised capitalism, this does not mean that the only solution is its complete abolition. Not at all. The question is rather, how should the next step of reform and change be done, without necessarily succumbing to totalitarian temptations. In other words: how could one achieve even more than Mandela, without becoming a Mugabe?

Comments

[papasha-mueller.livejournal.com]

"Or in other words, there is a need for a new type of democracy that would reflect the new social and economic realities in a more adequate way."

Which, probably, was achieved in Paris, 1968.

I wouldn't limit the protests to developing economies only. Greece would do nicely, too.
As well as 'Occupy!'

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I never limited the protests to developing economies only. In fact I did say they are happening in emerging economies as well. What's more, they are happening in some of the most developed economies.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

Globalised capitalism introduces a lot of inequality, when a manager in a multinational works in Brazil he gets paid 2-3x as much as would a similar manager in a much smaller company. At the same time there is foreign capital influx which is aimed at restructuring and obsoleting the entrenched domestic business. Workers need the support of the local governments to create sufficient protectionist measures, such as raising artificially lowered tax rates and protecting natural resources which tend to be unique or scarce.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Well, there was this myth over here that those who work at the local branches of multinational companies would receive Western-level salaries.

It didn't work that way.

There's a good reason those companies are outsourcing their activities in backwater countries like mine. Their employees here might be getting a slightly higher pay than the local average, but that's still nowhere near what they'd have been paid at the original location of origin of the company.

As for the foreign capital that's pushing the traditional local small businesses to the dirt, that's true in its large part. However, I can't help but notice a curious tendency here: those huge shopping chains for example, which came into my country in swaths some years ago, are now slowly shutting doors one after another - due to the crisis or something, or maybe the poor returns from customer volumes much smaller than initially anticipated. And the small businesses are crawling back in to fill the vacuum. Which is an enjoyable process to watch.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

Yes, but we are not talking just some outsourcing and factories, but companies that have their regional management in your country, and those aren't that many in small countries. In Brazil I believe a General Motors director or a Texaco director is going to make US-style salary and bonus, at a big differential to a Petrobras director.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

The director, yes.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't all this start because the government unilaterally decided to replace a park with an eyesore or something like that? I don't precisely see the direct correlation between this and Islamism, though I do see the connection with capitalism.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Virtually any of the last few posts about Turkey on this community (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/tag/turkey) has demonstrated the deeper reasons for the unrest in Turkey.

Further, the issue was not just that the government wanted a park there. It never was. The park was only the trigger, the final drop that spilled the cup. Even if we are to look no further than the surface of the problem, still, the actual trigger was the plans to put a mosque there, that triggered the protests:

"Mosque Dream Seen at Heart of Turkey Protests (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/europe/mosque-dream-seen-at-heart-of-turkey-protests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)"

The protests in Turkey are hardly homogeneous in terms of participants, granted. There are a myriad of groups at Taksim: the youth, liberals, Kemalists, nationalists, secularists, hippies, even some extremists. And the reasons for their protests are not just one or two. It's the authoritarian nature of Erdogan's rule. It's the lack of connection with his people. It's his arrogance in believing that, since he has the support of 51%+ of the population, the rest of them should just shut up. And yes, it's also the well noticeable attempt of his government to sway the country into a new direction - away from the democratic principles that the Turkish society had embraced for so many decades, and further into a more Islam-inspired, more autocratic state that would make Turkey look more akin to some of the Middle Eastern theocracies than it is now. He has been clearing his way toward that goal since day one when he got in power. He removed the biggest obstacle from his way, eliminating the top generals in the military (the institution which has upheld secularist democracy in Turkey time and time again over the years), and his plans for Gezi were just one more example of his efforts to transform the Turkish society into something it had been trying to run away from:

"Turkey's protests fuelled by leader's quest to restore Islam (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/turkeys-protests-fuelled-by-leaders-quest-to-restore-islam/article12585932/)"

So this is not just about some park, and not even about a mosque. There is a lot more to these protests than meets the eye of the regular outside observer:

"‘Democratic and Islamic values clash in Turkey’ (http://rt.com/op-edge/turkey-protest-islam-erdogan-167/)"

The good news is that the Turkish people are not stupid at all. For some time they used to be OK with Erdogan's actions. Because he brought economic prosperity to his country, and made it an emerging economy. But not any more. Now that he has shown his true face, through the brutal response of his police forces, people will know what he truly is. And this might be the beginning of a more active response to his agenda:

"Taksim Protests May Mark Onset Of Islamists' Retreat in Turkey (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/06/turkey-taksim-protests-islamist-retreat-nonreligious.html)"

I hope this wasn't too confusing.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure you can say that a military dictatorship behind the scenes technically upholds democracy, which is what I've read indicates actually applies with Turkey. Generals obey civilians, not the other way around, and if they can hire and fire governments convenient for them, they *are* the government. I do concede that the real issue is much more about religion than I thought it was. At the same token I'm not sure a political system where generals can select the most convenient set of politicians for them really is a democracy in even the loose sense of the word.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

The role of the military is a very big issue in its own worth, yes. Your question was about the reaction to Islamisation, and I believe I tried to answer it as best as I could.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You did, and thank you for that.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Actually the connection with Islamism is way more visible and direct than the one with capitalism. The connection with capitalism is mostly indirect, as far as it touches on the relation between democracy and capitalism. Whereas the connection between authoritarianism (which is contained in Islamism) and democracy (i.e. the protests) is pretty direct.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

But, just because the true reason for these protests is rooted in globalised capitalism, this does not mean that the only solution is its complete abolition.

Yes it does.

Well, I mean you could try the same old reformist two-step accompanied by some strong police crackdowns to get everyone not in jail on the neoliberal track. Coupled with a good media PR program, of course. It's always the same--regulate capitalism more and it will suddenly start working for the people's benefit instead of exploiting them for the gain of the rich. Still not gonna happen, friend.

It will do nothing to solve the real problems of capitalism, first exhaustively pointed out by Marx and Engels, and thankfully expounded upon by others like Bakunin, Kropotkin and Goldman so long ago.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

So what is the counter-proposal to the now existing system?

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

(Sorry for the long delay--work kept too busy)

To answer the question,

How about something where ‘ordinary’ people like you, can genuinely participate in and decide on the most important decisions of their lives, their work, neighborhoods, lands and wider societies? That seems like a good place to start for me. Something that naturally results in true equality without tampering with individual liberty.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Case in point: my country (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1611320.html). =)