This IS about a park

A slogan circulates on social networks about the protests in Istanbul: "This is not about a park, this is about democracy".

I understand why it may appear important to whoever invented the slogan to show their demands fit into a greater scheme of things. Their intuition is right on one point: it certainly works better for drawing the attention of the world's public if you characterise your struggle as that for democracy other than just for "some stupid park".

These other things – being heard, condemnation of the abuse of state power, freedom of expression and of the press, respect of minorities' rights – are of course all valuable, and don't misunderstand me, I am all for it: fully, unconditionally, with no cynicism, and for those who are genuinely advancing this more general democratic agenda.

However, there is nothing wrong had it all been only about a park. It's perfectly ok, even more than that. Let me explain why.

Cases like this are a boringly eternal return of the same. They are attempts of appropriation of the common goods through forms of modern enclosures where public spaces, places, the environment are taken away from the sphere of the public and are subjected to the logic of private profit-making. These operations bare little collective benefit, especially to the local residents who should be the primary holders of the right to the city. This is not only the right to have the city work also for them, but foremost the right to take part in the planning process about how their city should be built and organised.

Let's demystify one thing. We are not talking about The Common Good, but about the common goods. The debate about what is the general common good is a complicated one, and the term can easily be (has been) appropriated and mystified. Instead, the common goods are, well, goods: very concrete things such as land, places, squares, and public parks.

As long as they are commons, they provide some public service and are by definition under some societal jurisdiction. Indeed, in a way, the commons are societal at a more fundamental level than any other modern right or welfare state service. Even historically, before we had the latter, the political sphere has emerged as a question about how and what it means to govern the commons.

So, the question of the commons is the question about the character of our democracy. Unless we want our democracy to be only a debate about civil rights and the likes (again, don't misunderstand me, I'm all for it), we need the commons, for they are one important thing what democracy is all about. In a way, the commons are the fundamental material basis of the democracy and so their defence and extension is also the defence and extension of the democracy.

I'm not all that well informed to know all the demands boiling in the pot nor do I know what sorts of heterogony of ends has culminated in the Gezi Park protests. All I want to say is that there would have been nothing belittling had this Istanbul thing been "only about a park", because for that specific reason it would've very much also been about democracy. In other words, the slogan could've well been: "This is about a park, therefore this is about democracy."

Long live Gezi Park!
 
   

Popular posts from this blog

A Minimalist's Monetary Economy – Excel Edition (and one way in which capitalism will not end)

Image
I've  tried to recreate an embryonic monetary economy in an Excel, inspired by Steve Keen's basic model of endogenous-money economy. The guy does it with all the bells and whistles, differential equations and system dynamics modelling, so if you're after that sorts of stuff, go and read  his paper . But I thought the whole thing may be simplified in an Excel spreadsheet without lost of the essential. Heck, isn't Excel an economist's best friend these days? This is a minimalistic approach, even sort of a suprematism of economic modelling, but it nonetheless hints at answers to few questions which seem to puzzle so many people, such as:  If the firms have to repay loans with interests, where is that extra money supposed to come from on aggregate?  How are profits possible, if the loans have to be repaid with interests and there is only that much money in the economy? Are further loans the only possible source of money to repay the interests on the existing l
Read more

Trump Saved by Democrats’ Takeover of the House

Image
In his perceptive reading of James Cameron’s 1997 film “Titanic”, Slavoj Žižek neatly illustrates how a catastrophe can save a fantasy, or an ideal. There is a scene in the film, where Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) make each other a promise of eternal love:  “When this ship docks, I'm getting off with you“ , Rose says. That , and not the Titanic going down, Žižek claims, would have been the true catastrophe. Indeed, we can easily imagine how, once in New York, maybe after a few weeks of good sex, this fantasy of pure untainted love would have faded away, crumbling perhaps under the pressure of social expectations, of their objective cultural and social status differences, combined with the dullness after the inevitable loss of novelty and euphoria of falling in love. This then was the true function of the iceberg sinking the Titanic in the film: a momentous real catastrophe has to happen, so that the fantasy (or the ideal) can live on. (
Read more

On the Innocence of Guilty Scapegoats (a brief sketch)

This may be obvious to many.  But it looks elusive to some who seem to find a perplexing conundrum at the heart of what we may call the ethics in René Girard. It is his thesis of the radical innocence of the victims of scapegoating, the claim he appears to espouse that “the victim is always innocent”.  At first sight, this does not even look as a productive paradox, but outright empirically wrong. In what sense can one arrive to claim that a scapegoat is always innocent, even if the person is objectively, empirically responsible of an uncontroversial wrongdoing (say, a murder)?  It seems to me that the crucial subtlety of Girard's claim is that in scapegoating the victim is always innocent. In other words, the point here is that even if the victim is objectively responsible of the deeds which cannot but be deemed wrong (say, a murder), he or she is innocent relative to the scapegoating: the wrong the mob is committing is to use that person to deflect and appease rivalries, to obta
Read more

If Robots Could Desire?

Image
Universal Basic Income—Consumer robots—The Matrix—Work—Marx—Fetishism of money—End of capitalism—The Terminator—Synthetic (mimetic) need, or desire—Blade Runner—Duchamp—Data—Something out of nothing?
Read more

Skin-in-the-game principle as a justification for conscription/draft military service

Nassim Taleb asks for applications of the skin-in-the-game principle across domains. So, here's my take on an issue, in few coarse notes. I've been thinking about skin-in-the-game as a justification for conscription/draft military service vs. voluntary/mercenary army. I'll go there in a moment, but first an aside note. Sometimes it seems to me hearing Taleb striking some libertarian-ish notes. It's sort of a consequentialist libertarianism (arriving at libertarian attitude by evaluating the consequences of actions and policies, like the fragilising effects of centralisation and all that), which is different from categorical libertarians (starting from some fundamental moral prior, say the principle of self-possession, and constructing from there a libertarian theory, no matter the consequences). So it's kind of funny to see how skin-in-the-game may actually support something – conscription/draft military service – which sounds so un-libertarian. But let
Read more

Why the intellectual debate (and the R&R debacle) can't change Europe

Image
There has rightly been much ado about the Reinhart-Rogoff affaire , an academic and intellectual debacle of two prominent economists who provided gunpowder to austerians' claim that terrible things happen when a country's debt-to-GDP ratio rises above the imaginary tipping point of 90%. The notorious R&R's paper where this was suggested, it turns out , was based on fuzzy math, buggy Excel coding and data cherry picking. This was a huge thing, possibly a tipping point, because the debate that followed helped to unveil the simple truth that behind the austerian claims there were class interests, for actually  austerity is good for the 1% . Dean Bakers nicely spelled out why in few broad strokes: "High unemployment weakens workers' bargaining power allowing employers to get the vast majority of the gains from productivity growth over the last 5 years. While the rise in profit shares may not always offset the loss in profits due to weaker growth, this is lik
Read more

Antifragile Trump

Image
Listen carefully. It helps to understand why Donald Trump is antifragile, and how he's knowingly going to run an antifragile campaign: almost anything that could happen in the USA and in the world, from now to November, can in general only benefit him, and only damage Hillary Clinton. This is not a prophecy, but a simple positive observation (with a disturbing premonition, though): it doesn't yet mean that Trump will win, but it does mean that he's positioning himself on the "right" side of the bet on uncertainty.
Read more