4 ms·

There's an interesting essay about democracy in America (well, there are hundreds if not thousands probably) but what's unique is that it's a criticism levelled

There's an interesting essay about democracy in America (well, there are hundreds if not thousands probably) but what's unique is that it's a criticism levelled against the idea of democratic pluralism, and from where it emerges - the 'tolerance' of the democracy, the idea that rather than the individual action expounded by the classical liberals (for all their faults) there is now a system in which representative voices are heard - whether those are religious or ethno-groups or worker groups or business groups. The key part, though, is that the group is recognised as legitimate by the others and only then will it be tolerated. The idea of this tolerance is a kind of peaceful existence, which, the author argues, is inadequate for democracy but makes us feel good. The essay is "Beyond Tolerance" by Robert Wolff, and it's part of a three essay book called Critique of Pure Tolerance, which as the name may not suggest to the reader is written from a strongly left-wing point of view (it even contains an essay by Frankfurt School critical theorist Herbert Marcuse!). You can read the PDF of it here, I hope others are as enlightened by it as I was: https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Criti...

pas 9y ago
Do you maybe care for a tl;dr? I see, that it's not long (124 small form pages), but I'm very interested in what do you [or others] think of the essence of the essays, what are the insights that it gives to the reader. What was unexpected? What was expected? I also see that it's from 1968. How has it aged?
- etplayer 9y ago
  Although the book is long, the essay which I pointed to, which is the most poignant to the point of American democracy, is the only the first one (which is 52 pages long). The second essay concerns the benefits of using science (this term used broadly) to understand human society, and a rejection of the tolerance of some other methods. The third essay concerns what kind of political action should be tolerated in society, and the author argues for the tolerance of the Left wing, which is regarded as subversive, and positing that this subversive element is increasingly blocked in modern capitalist society through mass media, and this blocking may need to be cleared using apparently anti-democratic means such as the silencing of Right views. The sense of the first essay is that pluralistic democracy functions in such a way that groups, once recognised, have some of their needs met at various levels of bureaucracy, however none of them get all that they ask for and all of them get a little. What they ask for tends to affect only their own group with little overreach. Although this seems like a good idea, it also functions on the principle of simply blocking out those "fringe", "radical", "extreme" groups which aren't regarded as legitimate; it does not do this by denying their claim to the platform of groups, but it does this by denying their existence or plight in the first place. The author uses the examples of those left in poverty in America before Kennedy and those who campaigned for disarmament before the Cold War. As examples of groups on the platform, he uses religious ones (Protestants and Jews in particular) and ethnic ones. He argues that there is another model of pluralism, which he calls the 'referee' model, which contends that so far as the government is instituted to merely protect interest groups from colliding, it favours the stronger ones over the weaker ones. He writes in support of this, >In the field of regulation of labor unions, for example, the federal agencies deal with the established leadership of the unions. In such matters as the overseeing of union elections, the settlement of jurisdictional disputes, or the setting up of mediation boards, it is the interests of those leaders rather than the competing interests of rankandfile dissidents which are favored. In the regulation of agriculture, again, the locally most influential farmers or 1eaders of farmers' organizations draw up the guidelines for control which are then adopted by the federal inspectors. In each case, ironically, the unwillingness of the government to impose its own standards or rules results not in a free play of competing groups, but in the enforcement of the preferences of the existing predominant interests. I don't think my summary is adequate, as I first read the essay a long time ago, and I'm not sure if I completely agree with it or not (the author cites Durkheim when he talks about the flaws and advantages of classical liberalism and conservatism, how they together spawn pluralistic democracy) so I would recommend reading it if you get time. Edit: as for the importance of the first essay, from my point of view not much has changed, though I can't say for sure beacuse I only hear about America on the news. As for the last essay, I would say that it is extremely important considering the current political climate in Western countries, though many (especially on HN) would disagree with my view.
  - pas 9y ago
    Thanks! Sounds interesting. The preference toward the majority (plurality) is not surprising considering how regulatory capture is the norm in the US, due to the strong views of anti-federalism. (Which, I guess wasn't much different in the 60s and before.)
- bobwaycott 9y ago
  1968 was a particularly seminal year for political thought and action. There’s such a wealth of writings and histories to draw upon— Kurlansky’s 1968 provides an easily digested history, and the writings of The Situationist International, particularly Debord’s Society and the Spectacle, provide a great look at thought currents that drove some of the more tumultuous scenes of that year (and decade). Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man (1964) fits squarely within the current of cultural critique that fueled the decade. I’d say a great many of the writings age eerily well—they’re often still poignant and relevant to issues we deal with today.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    The unfortunate part about many works of political thought, particularly I think from German philosophy is that you need to have a significant amount of prerequisite knowledge, and this has been my case with the Frankfurt School in particular. I simply haven't had the time to do the background reading, so the texts are a little mystifying to me. Take for example The Dialectic of Enlightenment which is so very packed and dense that it reads like poetry to me, and what was accomplished in the first 20 pages therein could have been accomplished in a whole book by any authors other than Adorno and Horkheimer. I have similar trouble with Society of the Spectacle, though I managed to find help getting through it. Some are more approachable though, like Marcuse's shorter essays, Marx's non-Capital economic works and Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom. Edit: and of course Slavoj Zizek, though he is known to simplify and reduce concepts until the reader only gets a "kinda yeah" idea of what's being talked about. Sometimes I really do wonder if the wealth of distracting information presented to me, so easy to grab in a capitalist economy has dulled my brain, or if I even had that brain to use in the first place.
bobwaycott 9y ago
Since you mentioned him, anyone interested in this would do themselves a favor by reading Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man. I’d imagine Marcuse’s essay draws on similar themes as the book.

pas 9y ago

Do you maybe care for a tl;dr? I see, that it's not long (124 small form pages), but I'm very interested in what do you [or others] think of the essence of the essays, what are the insights that it gives to the reader. What was unexpected? What was expected? I also see that it's from 1968. How has it aged?

etplayer 9y ago
Although the book is long, the essay which I pointed to, which is the most poignant to the point of American democracy, is the only the first one (which is 52 pages long). The second essay concerns the benefits of using science (this term used broadly) to understand human society, and a rejection of the tolerance of some other methods. The third essay concerns what kind of political action should be tolerated in society, and the author argues for the tolerance of the Left wing, which is regarded as subversive, and positing that this subversive element is increasingly blocked in modern capitalist society through mass media, and this blocking may need to be cleared using apparently anti-democratic means such as the silencing of Right views. The sense of the first essay is that pluralistic democracy functions in such a way that groups, once recognised, have some of their needs met at various levels of bureaucracy, however none of them get all that they ask for and all of them get a little. What they ask for tends to affect only their own group with little overreach. Although this seems like a good idea, it also functions on the principle of simply blocking out those "fringe", "radical", "extreme" groups which aren't regarded as legitimate; it does not do this by denying their claim to the platform of groups, but it does this by denying their existence or plight in the first place. The author uses the examples of those left in poverty in America before Kennedy and those who campaigned for disarmament before the Cold War. As examples of groups on the platform, he uses religious ones (Protestants and Jews in particular) and ethnic ones. He argues that there is another model of pluralism, which he calls the 'referee' model, which contends that so far as the government is instituted to merely protect interest groups from colliding, it favours the stronger ones over the weaker ones. He writes in support of this, >In the field of regulation of labor unions, for example, the federal agencies deal with the established leadership of the unions. In such matters as the overseeing of union elections, the settlement of jurisdictional disputes, or the setting up of mediation boards, it is the interests of those leaders rather than the competing interests of rankandfile dissidents which are favored. In the regulation of agriculture, again, the locally most influential farmers or 1eaders of farmers' organizations draw up the guidelines for control which are then adopted by the federal inspectors. In each case, ironically, the unwillingness of the government to impose its own standards or rules results not in a free play of competing groups, but in the enforcement of the preferences of the existing predominant interests. I don't think my summary is adequate, as I first read the essay a long time ago, and I'm not sure if I completely agree with it or not (the author cites Durkheim when he talks about the flaws and advantages of classical liberalism and conservatism, how they together spawn pluralistic democracy) so I would recommend reading it if you get time. Edit: as for the importance of the first essay, from my point of view not much has changed, though I can't say for sure beacuse I only hear about America on the news. As for the last essay, I would say that it is extremely important considering the current political climate in Western countries, though many (especially on HN) would disagree with my view.
- pas 9y ago
  Thanks! Sounds interesting. The preference toward the majority (plurality) is not surprising considering how regulatory capture is the norm in the US, due to the strong views of anti-federalism. (Which, I guess wasn't much different in the 60s and before.)
bobwaycott 9y ago
1968 was a particularly seminal year for political thought and action. There’s such a wealth of writings and histories to draw upon— Kurlansky’s 1968 provides an easily digested history, and the writings of The Situationist International, particularly Debord’s Society and the Spectacle, provide a great look at thought currents that drove some of the more tumultuous scenes of that year (and decade). Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man (1964) fits squarely within the current of cultural critique that fueled the decade. I’d say a great many of the writings age eerily well—they’re often still poignant and relevant to issues we deal with today.
- etplayer 9y ago
  The unfortunate part about many works of political thought, particularly I think from German philosophy is that you need to have a significant amount of prerequisite knowledge, and this has been my case with the Frankfurt School in particular. I simply haven't had the time to do the background reading, so the texts are a little mystifying to me. Take for example The Dialectic of Enlightenment which is so very packed and dense that it reads like poetry to me, and what was accomplished in the first 20 pages therein could have been accomplished in a whole book by any authors other than Adorno and Horkheimer. I have similar trouble with Society of the Spectacle, though I managed to find help getting through it. Some are more approachable though, like Marcuse's shorter essays, Marx's non-Capital economic works and Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom. Edit: and of course Slavoj Zizek, though he is known to simplify and reduce concepts until the reader only gets a "kinda yeah" idea of what's being talked about. Sometimes I really do wonder if the wealth of distracting information presented to me, so easy to grab in a capitalist economy has dulled my brain, or if I even had that brain to use in the first place.

bobwaycott 9y ago

Since you mentioned him, anyone interested in this would do themselves a favor by reading Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man. I’d imagine Marcuse’s essay draws on similar themes as the book.