The Isocracy Network

It should come as little surprise that many libertarian capitalists lack a nuanced view of labour market economics. After all, they lack a nuanced view on pretty much everything else as well. One does not have to go far to find utterly trite arguments [1] that suggest that a "libertarian" approach would mean "that human beings should be free to undertake exchanges with each other free from force, fraud or coercion" which, from their astoundingly simplistic interpretation of such things, means an end to such horrific interventions in the free market such as minimum wages, occupational health and safety, anti-discrimination laws, penalty rates, sick leave, and holiday pay.

This paper arose from a panel discussion amongst recent law school graduates, current law students and intermediate Court Judges on the need for Courts to look to the future. I advocated for a broader view of diversification amongst the judiciary, given that the current debate is limited to elevating more women to the bench. The paper is an attempt to bring that discussion to a logical resting point, and to open the debate to other people passionate about public representation and participation of minorities.

This paper focuses primarily on ‘visible’ or ‘objectively verifiable’ needs as the most convenient point of departure, and therefore is not well-equipped to discuss invisible disadvantage such as classism, invisible disabilities, and racism against people with white-passing privilege.

Ben Debney, Deakin University, Australia

Book Review : George Morgan and Scott Poynting (eds) (2013) Global Islamophobia: Muslims and Moral Panic in the West.
London: Ashgate.

Previous to 2001, Islam was a mere flicker on the radar of popular xenophobic paranoia. A decade and a half and the world's first global moral panic later, this situation has changed entirely, apparently by design. As the editors of Global Islamophobia point out, the Terror Scare has elevated Muslims to 'transnational folk devil, foisting the logic of 'if you think for yourselves the terrorists win' on the public realm in the name of defending democratic values. The paradoxical character of the generally destructive effects of this Terror Scare on democratic culture remains hard to miss, not least given the rhetoric about western values that tends to accompany much of the debate.

Protracted scare‐mongering about global Islam has tended to frustrate attempts to understand the meaning of the 9/11 attacks and of their root causes. One might argue that this was its primary function, especially to the extent that blame‐shifting through playing the victim and victim‐blaming are characteristic facets of moral panics. Despite the well‐established link between western military aggression and burgeoning terrorism (for example, Edward Herman's The Real Terror Network; Noam Chomsky's Deterring Democracy), efforts to hold western governments, corporate media outlets and others to account for that aggression, and for the lies told to justify it politically, have been met with mixed success so far. This fact is reflected in the continuing currency of xenophobia and the tendency of purportedly accountable representatives everywhere to blame Islam for everything from global wealth inequality to military conflict to the burgeoning surveillance state.

Like any form of war, it is rare that revolutions unfold according to some preordained plan. This is because of course, there is usually several plans in operation, which just so happen to have a common interest. After the common interest is achieved, they will often turn on each other. This is particularly important for those who wish to establish a democracy after a dictatorship; unless the revolutionary constitution and new military provide a commitment to liberal and secular rights, the majority - without a familiarity with these concepts - may very well turn to theocracy, following the long-repressed religious leadership. Likewise a broad-based revolution really needs to be careful of its political preferences; being united with political opponents to overthrow a dictatorship is unhelpful if those opponents are worse that the dictator in question.

It is thus the outcomes of the civil war that becomes the deciding factor of what political system will rule a region after a revolution that has multiple participants, and this raises a matter of critical importance for social activists outside of the region of military struggle. The contemporary case of Libya is an illustrative example, starting from a review of the Gaddafi dictatorship, then the Libyan revolution, the current Libyan Civil War, and the relevance for similar countries.

In the previous part to Criminalisation is the Crime! I pointed to the central act of the State in understanding the nature of crime. That, for the majority of crimes resulting in incarceration, they are non-violent acts. In the case of the United States many of these offences relate to drugs, often just their mere possession or use. I also referred to the undeniable reality that some crime – indeed, much violent, physical and mental, crime – relates to complex biological and social factors. The danger in calling out a crime as a fact of biology or society is, or should be, apparent. Until we arrive at some future golden age of total knowledge the true content of criminality will elude us. This perhaps disspiriting observation should not, however, deter us from the task of peeling away the detritus of archaic understandings and customs.

We also observed, through the initial case study of Singapore (to which we will return), that the political nature of crime is one of the primary means of social control in the State’s arsenal. In its role as social arbiter, the State goes by many names: the Judiciary, jurisprudence, justice, the Courts, and so on. (All reflecting the Roman foundations of law, ius.) In the case of Singapore, the State wields the authority and power of law to mould society, punish miscreancy, and to ensure that the balance of power, between the State and the populace, is bent toward the former. This is not to single out Singapore as a singularity among the modern ‘democratic’ bureaucratic States. Indeed, Singapore falls into line within the spectrum of Anglo-American liberal democracies, albeit more overtly within the control of an authoritarian political dynasty (the Lee family and the populist party it has helmed since the 1960s, the People’s Action Party).

In the past the Isocracy Network has had some association with the cooperative movement. It is not without reason that we are meeting at the New International Bookshop, which is a cooperative (and we have a member on the bookshop board). At our 2012 Annual General Meeting our guest speaker was Race Matthews, the former state and federal minister and author of "Jobs of Our Own", who spoke on the cooperative movement. Tonight we have a representative of the Earthworker's Cooperative who will speak on the mission of that organisation in responding to climate change and helping the establishment of worker's cooperatives throughout Australia with sustainability-focussed industries.

Definition

A cooperative is defined as non-profit organisations and businesses that exist for the mutual benefit of the members. Some for-profit entities are very close to cooperatives; sole traders and partnerships are an example as the members (even in the case of one) receives equal benefit to all other members. Other non-profits are also close insofar that they have equitable management, or provide member benefits, such as trade unions, incorporated associations, charities etc.

Strict cooperatives can be differentiated by the people who equal membership and mutual benefit franchise system (a retailer cooperative), those who use a service (a consumer cooperative, leveraging economies of scale)., the people who work there (a worker's cooperative, using democratic-workplace management), the people who live at a location (a housing cooperative, a specialised consumer cooperative), with hybrid and multi-stakeholder combinations (e.g., a labour-managed credit union).

It not unusual for a political theory and ideology such as Isocracy to be asked what individuals are inspirational or aligned to its point of view. To some degree caution is justified as (a) no single person agrees with everything that is proposed on the Isocracy pages (and vice-versa) and (b) often the person is deceased so it is perhaps a little unfair to claim their association without their consideration. At best one can go through the available works of a person and do a comparison. Nevertheless, as part of a series an attempt is made here to propose several individuals from the past who could be considered "at home" with the Isocracy Network.

One such person is Albert Einstein. Whilst most famously known for his cosmological studies in general and special relatively, he was also a person he commented a great deal on the social and political affairs of the day, rather than let his specialist field entirely dominate his world experience. Perhaps in a different forum, one could also consider his even more extensive commentary on religious philosophy.