Ideas

What a crock of s**t to describe 2016 as the start of “post-truth” politics.

The Oxford English Dictionary is reported to have said that “post-truth” is their word of the year. In the Washington Post they commented: It’s official: Truth is dead. Facts are passe.

What world do you live in, where the pre-2016 establishment-sanctioned zeitgeist is “the truth”? The only thing that has happened in 2016 is that millions of working people have shown that they do not accept the world view that has been foisted on them for decades.

The capitalist media are incandescnt that the public are not believing what the capitalist media want them to believe. And with the arrogance that only an establishment incapable of accepting any other truth apart from their own can hold, they patronise the non-believers. They are ignorant. They are uneducated. They are the great unwashed. How dare they have the effrontery to hold beliefs that have not been handed down to them by the great and the good.

The main examples of this post-truth reality the Washington Post cites are the UK referendum on membership of the EU, and the US presidential election.

I am one of those great unwashed who voted for the UK to leave the European Union. The believers in capitalist propaganda would have you believe that I, and millions of people like me, voted out of ignorance. We were led astray by the lies of the official Leave campaign. We swallowed every lie. Because we are stupid. The truth did not matter to us, what mattered was our emotions or our personal beliefs.

The Oxford dictionary definition of post-truth says it means – relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

In their bitterness at losing the referendum, many politicians who campaigned for Remain blame the loss on lies told by the Leave campaign. At the same time they believe that the Leave voters were predominantly the non-metropolitan, predominantly Labour-voting working class. And yet they suggest that this caricature of Labour working-class flat-cap wearing socialist-loving voters were seduced by the lies of the Leave campaign.

But the Leave campaign was dominated by right-wing Tory politicians. Boris Johnson is known to the whole world as a far-right self-serving ambitious opportunist. Do you think your flat cap wearing caricatures of a Labour voter listen to Tory demagogues? Only if you assume they are stupid, ignorant or both.

I do not think you can characterise 17 million people with a few broad brush strokes like that. But I can definitely speak for myself. And I can definitively say that nothing that came out of Boris Johnson’s mouth, or out of MIchael Gove’s lips, had the slightest influence on my voting decision.

In fact, in discussion with other Leave voters (voters whose views differ from my own on many issues) one thing was clear – they were more likely to have been influenced negatively by the pronouncements of the Remain campaign than they were to listen to Gove and Johnson. Because if David Cameron opened his mouth, you knew he was lying. If George Osborne uttered a word, it was a false word.

Post-truth is not the correct word for what is happening now, either in the UK or in Europe. To call it post-truth, you have to believe that what was happening before 2016 was truth. It never was. Working people are becoming increasingly aware that both sides of the mainstream political divide are liars. If they reject your lies, you call it post-truth.

There is something Orwellian about that.

Workers’ democracy differs from capitalist democracy in one major way. It enables the working class to control the people it selects to run the country on their behalf.

If you think that the present systems of democracy achieve that, you are clrearly a simpleton.

There are many ways in which the “will of the people” is subverted in capitalist democracies. The most obvious is the direct and indirect power of money. MP’s who do not have a firm socialist ideology are easily swayed by the moneyed classes. Get elected to parliament and as soon as you get to London you are obviously riding a very generous gravy train. The salaries and pensions of MP’s, especially the pensions, are so generous that they are rarely even discussed in public. Neither side of the political divide wants to upset that particular gravyboat.

MP’s who get through a few years of participation soon get the carrot of ministerial posts dangled in front of their noses. There are dozens of ministers in every government. And for each government minister there has to be a shadow minister on the other side, vying to get into power and enjoy the same priveleges that their opponent has at the moment.

And also from outside the obvious political sphere, money spins its nefarious web. Whatever choice a government makes, it has to deal with the reaction of business, “the markets” (whatever that vague expression is supposed to mean), the Stock Exchange and of individual big businesses. We are going to move abroad. We are going to fund and publicly support the other party. We are going to blame you for everything that goes wrong. And oh yes, there are also the inducements; the directorships, the business opportunities etc. Tony Blair is an egregious example of how ex-politicians can cash in on their previous life. But a quick look at the post-political life of hundreds of politicians makes it obvious. They all claim to have gone into politics to “make a difference”. And whatever they achieve in public life, they usually manage to make a big difference to their earning potential.

Workers’ democracy is a system that prevents all these consequences. Because it depends, first and foremost, on the ability of the voters to recall their representatives whenever they take decisions that are not in the best interests of their electorate. Immediate recall is the great leveller.

The first examples of workers’ democracy can be seen in the struggles of ordinary working people, during times of upheaval, to have their voices heard. The Levellers, the Paris Commune. Eventually these came to a head in the formation of the first workers’ and peasant’s councils in 1905, during the first Russian revolution. Those embryonic organs of working class power came to their height in the Russian Revolution of 1917 when the workers across the world celebrated the overthrow of the Tsar and the eventual establishment of workers’ and peasants’ power in the October Revolution.

The workers’ councils created by the workers and peasants of Russia had their flaws, and eventually succumbed to a bureaucratic take-over by the administrators and appartatchiks of the government. But that was caused primarily by the weakness of the working clsss in 1920’s Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union.

In modern times the ability of the mass of the population to express their needs and wishes directly are far easier and more immediate. And the modern working class, at least in the industrialised countries, is incomparably stronger than the fledgeling working class in Moscow and Petersburg during the early 1920’s.

In advanced capitalist economies it would be perfectly practical to issue a basic smartphone to every adult over the age of 16. Voting would then be caried out by electing representatives to push for whatever those voters wanted. The same technologies that facilitate Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and mobile banking can be harnessed to create a medium to enable every elector to express their wishes on who their political representative should be.

It is speculation to try and imagine how the people would choose to organise their politics and economy after a workers’ government is established. But I have tried to imagine how it might work, and here is a simple outline. You may not agree with it. You may vehemently disagree with it. You can out-vote me on your smartphone if you can get enough supporters. But here goes.

It may be easier to visualise what I describe if you think of the electoral process as something like a national Facebook site. Everty voter over 16 is allocated a unique ID and password.

Let’s split the population up into constituencies of 100,000 people. Every voter could be randomly allocated a constituency. They would vote to send approximately 600 representatives to a national workers’ council.

Workers’ representatives would be paid the same as the average income in the country. No special priveleges. Any additional expenses required for them to carry out their duties (travel costs, secretarial services etc.) would be paid directly by a central adminustration, not through expense claims.

At any time the constituents of a representative could launch an online campaign to have their representative removed. And if more than 50 per cent of their voters demand a recall, they would have to stand for election again.

The site could also enable various interest groups to be formed. Examples might include NHS staff, railway workers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, gays, car mechanics, florists. There need be no limit to the groups. And individuals could be members of several groups. A woman might be a member of the Mothers’ group and the Parents’ group, as well as a group representing her work activity, social interests, ethnicity, etc. It would probably be necessary to have geographical groups too, so you could have a say on what happens in your area. The role of all these non-constituency groups is to openly lobby for their own needs and wishes, so that the regional and national councils can properly reflect the needs of the whole electorate.

It is just an outline, and a very simple one, but whenever I think about the possibilities I cannot help getting excited. Once upon a time it was necessary for every genuinely democratc body to meet physically, hold a debate and have a show of hands. Factory meetings, soldiers’ councils, etc all had to down tools, so to speak, to participate in their direct democracy. NOw we have democracy at our fingertips, potentially.

Roll on the revolution.