The importance of democracy does not lie in its functions within the modern state, but rather in its ability to organize collective action in a decentralized way and thus be in competition with the market.
By the time the 21st century arose, it seemed that the only important debate in public life was between the model of the state and the model of the market, one total yet centralized while the other was partial and decentralized. The state offered the chance for equality, and the market offered the chance for freedom. This debate was strongest in regards to the economy and the allocation of scarce and abundant goods. In fact, the nature of scarcity was redefined by this debate, appearing as artificial yet necessary in the market and seen as a vital factor in the state only in regards to propaganda that would marginalize the other as an enemy of the people. The limits of the state were in fact revealed, through a market-based critique, by the constant surfacing of scarcity whenever centralized or total planning of the economy was put forth. However, because the scarcity in question was artificial, the market model offered a decentralized alternative that failed to satisfy all parties involved. In other words, someone had to go without in the market, while the state offered universal access but in predetermined amounts for all involved. Both models, when set up against each other in comparison, failed to be adequate to the social body in providing both freedom and equality at the same time. The contrast of the failings reveal that democracy, as a primal form of collective action, can exist outside of both the market and the state while fulfilling the needs of those in the social sphere.
Read the rest of this entry »