{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","title":"Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","id":"2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","uuid":"2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","title":"Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics","normalized_title":"democracyandotherneoliberalfantasiescommunicativecapitalismandleftpolitics","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"isbns":[],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":229,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Democracy%20and%20Other%20Neoliberal%20Fantasies%20Communicative%20Capitalism%20and%20Left%20Politics","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5/search"},"page":{"printed_page":93,"pdf_page":103,"physical_index":103,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"2842a0f098214398872d39588f0b306bc227cf586cd6e104da67a3c3dec9ab0a"},"chapter":"Comunicative Capitalism & Left Politics","content":"Present Dem.ocracy\n\nThe idea that democracy is present, at least in its notion, took hold in the nineties. Socialism, the only apparent alternative to democracy, seemed barren, exposed as a costly, deadly, failed experiment. Expansions in networked communications technologies seemed to realize in material form the conditions necessary for deliberation. With more and more people able to access more and more information, to register their opinions and participate in deliberation, how could any government but democracy even be possible? Of course, matters are not so simple. Some of the most repressive regimes (e.g., Singapore, Indonesia) are some of the most heavily networked. And as I emphasize throughout this book, extensions in communication have been accompanied by, indeed rooted in, amplifcations of capitalism.\n\nAs Gutmann and Thompson make dear, the idea that democracy is present justifies Bush's decision. He is acting out a mandate, exercising the people's wil, carrying out the law. But what about the sign in the cofee shop? If we say that democracy is present, then the protestors' appeal to democracy makes no sense: why are they fighting for something that they have? Are they saying, \"More of the same! More of the same!\"? Clearly this is not what they are after and this is why their appeal to democracy is fruitless: it is an appeal to the status quo for more of the same, with an emphasis, however, on more-more information, more participation, more deliberation-as if sheer quantity could bridge the gap and produce a diferent outcome. To this extent, it fals into the traps of communicative capitalism, strengthening the very structures it ostensibly aims to change.\n\nThe protestors (and the left more generaly) appeal to democracy because they look at themselves from the position of their opponents, the Bush administration (or the right more generally), just as the Bush administration looks at itself from the position of its opponent, the so-caled Islamic fundamentalist or terrorist. And just as the Bush administration adopts the tactics of its opponent to try to fil the lack it sees-political wil, moral rectitude, the resolve to name and confront evil-so does the left try to live up to, respond to, right versions of its failures. Avoiding the extremes, it puts itself in the middle. It isn't partisan, one-sided, or politically correct but fair and democratic, not a special interest group but in tune with mainstream American values. It isn't socialist (and really doesn't favor the welfare state) but is instead committed to economic growth and free markets.\n\nD EMOCRACY\n\n93","previous_page":92,"next_page":94}