Thread by @shengokai

"The end of democracy is a radical end. For it is an end that has not been adequately realized in any county at any time. It is radical because it requires great change in existing social institutions, economic, legal and cultural." (1/n)

"A democratic liberalism that does not recognize these things in thought and action is not awake to its own meaning and to what that meaning demands." (2/n)

John Dewey, "Creative Democracy - The Task Before Us"

So let's be clear about this: for Dewey, every liberal or liberal democratic movement in his lifetime had failed to achieve the ends of Democracy because it failed to recognize that true Democracy, could only be achieved through the radical restructuring of our society. (3/n)

As Democracy is actualizing the "belief that every human being, independent of the quantity or range of his personal endowment, has the right to equal opportunity with every other person for development of whatever gifts he has," restructuring society is non-negotiable. (4/n)

And, to the extent any "democratic" movement puts the restructuring of society off the table, for Dewey, said movement is insufficiently aware of its own meaning, its total effect on the system of relations it finds itself in. Moreover, it is insufficiently radical. (5/n)

Now, it wasn't JUST restructuring society, but a restructuring that involved the inclusion of the experiences of marginalized folks, and not merely in the mode of paternalism (Freire is REAL good in talking about this), but to structure both means and ENDS. (6/n)

Or, as Dewey says it, a democratic "crusade can win at the best but partial victory unless it springs from a living faith in our common human nature and in the power of voluntary action based upon public collective intelligence," by which he means the sharing of experience. (7/n)

Here, Dewey's democracy differs from pretty much every other definition out there: Dewey predicates democracy on the collective exchange of experience such that we can solve problems together in ways that advance human flourishing for everyone, not just a few. (8/n)

And again, we see parallels with Frerie's pedagogical method in that supposed liberals, radicals, and converts to the cause of the oppressed, IF they are to be successful, must take seriously the experiences of the oppressed including the ways they suggest to end it. (9/n)

It is this latter element that plagues the left (in the broadest possible meaning) as some folks, despite their radical aims, will only accept the validity of the experience of the oppressed to a point, usually when it threatens their radical agenda. (10/n)

Which is to say that they expose themselves as not in true solidarity with the oppressed (Frerie) and not committed to the aims of Democracy (Dewey) or the means whereby the ends of democracy as a way of life and a revolutionary process, can be achieved. (11/n)

Hence, we have Dewey's tragedy of democracy, or the failure for members of the left to recognize the need to align the ends they seek with the appropriate means, including those means that emerge from the oppressed with whom they claim to stand in solidarity. (12/n)

As Dewey says: "There is comparatively little difference among the groups at the left as to the social ends to be reached. There is a great deal of difference as to the means by which these ends should be reached and by which they can be reached..." (13/n)

"This difference as to means is the tragedy of democracy in the world today," He's FUCKING RIGHT. Since the means for achieving the social ends of democracy proceeds from the experiences of people, to the extent that we don't trust experience, we'll never agree on means. (14/n)

Basically, the only way we're going to get anything done, including the radical restructuring of society necessary to achieve democratic ends, is if we start trusting one another's experiences and incorporating them into our radical work. Otherwise we're fucked. (15/n)

And, as Dewey says, none of our movements have been sufficiently radical enough to take seriously the experiences of folks we're not in direct contact with such that they serve to organize our radical means.

Don't believe me? Ask any disabled activist. ASK THEM. (16/n)

Actually, don't just ask them: include them. Include them in your organizing, include their needs in how you host your meetings, structure your demands, and how you determine the means to achieve the social ends. Include them in every step of your work. (17/n)

Include them in ways beyond tokenistic modes of "providing access," a concept which has been evacuated of any meaning during COVID. Include them in ways that their experience serves to structure your radical organization as much as whatever leftist text you preach from. (18/n)

Finally, if your radical organizing has anything to say about labor, about economics, include sex workers of all varieties as full participants. By "include," you know what I mean. To the extent that you fail to do so, we should question how "radical" your ends are. (fin)