Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Politics, Fantasy, and Reality
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1 of 80 (140944)
09-08-2004 12:06 PM


In the now-defunct "What Is Your Worldview?" thread, I posted the following response to contracycle. I intended to comment on the wishful-thinking and post-hoc rationalization that constitutes most dogmatic political discourse.
contracycle,
quote:
I advocate a system that is NON GOVERNMENT, but instead freedom and independance.
That's the same thing that libertarians and free-market hypercapitalists say, but that doesn't make it any less pie-in-the-sky just because you claim Marxism is a more valid philosophy than laissez-faire. Marxism is pseudoscientific, as evidenced by its inability to formulate testable predictions as well as the post-hoc rationalizations of its adherents in the face of its demonstrable shortcomings. If we can't claim that, for example, the old Soviet Union testifies to problems with Marxism (since you claim that state communism isn't a valid demonstration of true communism), then you can't claim that America is an example of capitalism's woes. The capitalists could merely repeat your claim that state capitalism is not true capitalism, and why would we have any more reason to accept their word than yours?
Let's recall that Marx's translation of Hegel's dialectics did indeed call for a dictatorship of the proletariat, the final post-revolution synthesis of political and economic power. In the absence of class struggle, this dictatorship was supposed to wither away as the society reorganized according to principles of egalitarianism and cooperation. It's not surprising that no communist society has made it to this Promised Land, since governments (let alone dictatorships) never operate for any other aim than self-perpetuation.
Revolution is the opium of the dogmatist. We're supposed to forget that the American Revolution led to the megacorporate capitalism that needs to conquer the world for garbage dumps, slave labor and rubes to whom it can shill its wares. We're not supposed to recall that the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and produced that paragon of egalitarianism, Napoleon. And we can't even mention the Russian Revolution, which led to a disastrous economic program that starved millions and a maniacal tyranny that crushed dissent mercilessly. You say you want a revolution? Count me out.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 12:32 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 3 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-08-2004 4:12 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 09-08-2004 4:27 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 11 by portmaster1000, posted 09-08-2004 10:19 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 13 by berberry, posted 09-09-2004 2:53 AM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 18 by contracycle, posted 09-09-2004 7:12 AM MrHambre has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 2 of 80 (140948)
09-08-2004 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
09-08-2004 12:06 PM


Revolution is the opium of the dogmatist.
Heheheh... that's a nice line but I kind of have to disagree.
While you are right that the new governments in your examples eventually did exactly what Jefferson warned they would (become encroaching powers), that does not mean the revolutions themselves were not necessary/worthy.
Revolutions, especially wholly violent ones, should not be thought of as a great thing we must strive for constantly. Like everything we don't like has to face the burning fires or REVOLUTION. But revs are sometimes necessary as a mechanism for removing corrupt regimes/powers.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 09-08-2004 12:06 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 3 of 80 (141012)
09-08-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
09-08-2004 12:06 PM


Revolution is the opium of the dogmatist. We're supposed to forget that the American Revolution led to the megacorporate capitalism that needs to conquer the world for garbage dumps, slave labor and rubes to whom it can shill its wares. We're not supposed to recall that the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and produced that paragon of egalitarianism, Napoleon. And we can't even mention the Russian Revolution, which led to a disastrous economic program that starved millions and a maniacal tyranny that crushed dissent mercilessly. You say you want a revolution? Count me out.
IMO, what made the American Revolution "right" and the Russian and French revolutions "wrong" is that Americans were fighting to keep the STATUS QUO government rather than to change the existing government.
The Americans had been basically ruling themselves for almost a couple of hundred years when England decided to start messing with them and taking away their freedoms. The governmental structures, figures, and social classes were basically the same before and after the war for Independence.
On the other hand, when you try to reverse the order in society by overthrowing the establishment, then anarchy ensues followed by a sometimes tyrranical rule by the strongest and most violent hand. This is what happened in the French and Russian revolutions.
As for Contracycle's idea that a NON GOVERNMENT could ever work is, well, retarded. The book Lord of the Flies, although fiction, is a perfect example of how NON GOVERNMENT fails. As long as there are people who are imperfect, there will arise an equilibrium between freedom and authority, but there will never be freedom without authority.
I somewhat agree with Mr Hambre:
It's not surprising that no communist society has made it to this Promised Land, since governments (let alone dictatorships) never operate for any other aim than self-perpetuation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 09-08-2004 12:06 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2004 4:33 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 4:46 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 19 by contracycle, posted 09-09-2004 7:20 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 80 (141015)
09-08-2004 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
09-08-2004 12:06 PM


quote:
In the absence of class struggle, this dictatorship was supposed to wither away as the society reorganized according to principles of egalitarianism and cooperation. It's not surprising that no communist society has made it to this Promised Land, since governments (let alone dictatorships) never operate for any other aim than self-perpetuation.
I think this hits on two things: The propensity for political power to be self serving and the gullibility of revolutionaries. The main thrust behind most revolutions is to move the government towards some utopia, be it democracy or the "Promised Land" of communist economic equality. I would say that revolutionaries have the best interest of the society at heart (popular revolutions, not coups). Through history we see the same pattern, a popular uprising in support of a governmental utopia that is then taken over by a dictator or oligarchy that leads society towards distopia.
The fantasy is that powerful leaders will relinquish their power willingly, and the reality is the failed governmental systems of the past 200 years that failed to fulfill their duties as proposed by the revolutionaries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 09-08-2004 12:06 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2004 4:40 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 80 (141016)
09-08-2004 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Hangdawg13
09-08-2004 4:12 PM


As for Contracycle's idea that a NON GOVERNMENT could ever work is, well, retarded. The book Lord of the Flies, although fiction, is a perfect example of how NON GOVERNMENT fails. As long as there are people who are imperfect, there will arise an equilibrium between freedom and authority, but there will never be freedom without authority.
As Larry Niven has said, anarchy is the least stable form of government. It falls apart at a touch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-08-2004 4:12 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 6 of 80 (141018)
09-08-2004 4:37 PM


Roots of this topic
For the record, the theme of this topic has its roots in the Political Correlation? and What is Your Worldview? topics, and perhaps elsewhere.
I judged the theme to be good, but lost in topics where is was, at best, marginly on topic. Since the theme had taken over those topics, I closed them and forced the creation of this topic.
You may wish to consult the two precursor topics, for more on the theme. The links are to my closing messages - go back upthread from there.
PLEASE, NO RESPONSES TO THIS MESSAGE, OTHER THAN TO THE "CHANGES IN MODERATION?" TOPIC, LINK BELOW.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 80 (141019)
09-08-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Loudmouth
09-08-2004 4:27 PM


In my opinion, as someone with revolutionary leanings, the problem with most revolutionaries is they think that the revolution will result in the utopia that they espouse. They seem to quit thinking critically after the revolution, especially when their faction is in power.
Revolution is not really a means of instituting utopia -- it is, as holmes put it, a means of removing intransigent obstacles that prevent the discussion in the democratic sphere of what the "utopia" should consist of, and how to move closer to the ideal. If a revolution is necessary, and it succeeds, it is only then that people can truly discuss what should come next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 09-08-2004 4:27 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 09-08-2004 5:21 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 8 of 80 (141020)
09-08-2004 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Hangdawg13
09-08-2004 4:12 PM


IMO, what made the American Revolution "right" and the Russian and French revolutions "wrong" is that Americans were fighting to keep the STATUS QUO government rather than to change the existing government.
While I cannot completely agree with your assessment... it's a little on the simplistic side... I found it very well put together.
Not only did I have to do some thinking, it made me want to do some thinking about the nature of the different revolutions.
I think you are right about the different natures, though it must be admitted that the French and Russian revolutions were precursored by an attempt by the central government to reign in people's freedoms, and hold on to power that had been moving into the hands of others. It was not as dramatic as the US example, but those elements were still there.
In the end I would not be able to classify them as right or wrong, but why one was group was more difficult to manage than the other.
On the other hand, when you try to reverse the order in society by overthrowing the establishment, then anarchy ensues followed by a sometimes tyrranical rule by the strongest and most violent hand.As long as there are people who are imperfect, there will arise an equilibrium between freedom and authority, but there will never be freedom without authority.
Personally I am a Utopian Anarchist, the difference between me and other Anarchists being that I understand the Utopia at the front means it will NEVER HAPPEN.
I think you above statement is a little harsh, perhaps lowering expectations needlessly, but otherwise correct in practice. There certainly CAN be freedom without authority, but naturally roles will be developed and if any sort of large scale urbanization is going to take place an authority will emerge from these roles.
I will also state that there is a vast difference between authority and authoritarian.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-08-2004 4:12 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-08-2004 8:47 PM Silent H has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 80 (141032)
09-08-2004 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chiroptera
09-08-2004 4:40 PM


quote:
Revolution is not really a means of instituting utopia -- it is, as holmes put it, a means of removing intransigent obstacles that prevent the discussion in the democratic sphere of what the "utopia" should consist of, and how to move closer to the ideal. If a revolution is necessary, and it succeeds, it is only then that people can truly discuss what should come next.
I hear what you are saying, but most revolutions (IMHO) are centered around one theme or a cult of personality. For the Bolsheviks it what centered around Marxism and Lenin, for the Cubans it was Castro, for the Americans it was democracy/free market. Perhaps the French Revolution was the closest to what you propose, the removal of a corrupt autocracy.
I will agree that the revolution is usually an orgasmic release of pent up aggression from within the populace. Their ideas are not focused on establishing a strict construct of government, but rather a somewhat nebulous idea of either political or economic freedom (or both) through a ideology espoused by their revolutionary leaders. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that revolutions need a main focus, something for the people to rally behind. Somehow, a few people arrive at a set of ideas that then spreads like a runaway meme through the huddled masses yearning to be free. Those that are able to initiate or organize this idea are then pushed to the forefront of the movement and become the de facto spokesmen for the revolution.
IMO, revolutions are a great study on how humans act as a collective. It shows how public opinion can be swayed and how to control public opinion and favor. As we have all seen throughout history, the causes of a revolution and the outcome of a revolution are sometimes, tragically, the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2004 4:40 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by berberry, posted 09-09-2004 3:07 AM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 09-09-2004 6:35 AM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 17 by contracycle, posted 09-09-2004 6:37 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 10 of 80 (141088)
09-08-2004 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
09-08-2004 4:46 PM


While I cannot completely agree with your assessment... it's a little on the simplistic side... I found it very well put together.
Wow, this makes two issues that you and Crashfrog basically agree with me on now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 4:46 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2004 2:39 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 09-09-2004 6:08 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 80 (141106)
09-08-2004 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
09-08-2004 12:06 PM


Rational Anarchist?
contracycle writes:
I advocate a system that is NON GOVERNMENT, but instead freedom and independance.
Professor Bernardo de la Paz (The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein) writes:
A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.
Is it just me or do these views sound very similar?
If you've not read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, contracycle, I'm sure you'd like it.
I highly recommend it, BTW
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 09-08-2004 12:06 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by contracycle, posted 09-09-2004 7:24 AM portmaster1000 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 80 (141147)
09-09-2004 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Hangdawg13
09-08-2004 8:47 PM


Wow, this makes two issues that you and Crashfrog basically agree with me on now.
Yeah, surprise! We're swayed by rational, intelligent, well-supported arguments, no matter who's making them.
It's called "intellectual honesty."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-08-2004 8:47 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 80 (141149)
09-09-2004 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
09-08-2004 12:06 PM


Did you say 'Revolution'?
MrHambre proclaims:
quote:
You say you want a revolution? Count me out.
Well, you know it's going to be all right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 09-08-2004 12:06 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 80 (141151)
09-09-2004 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Loudmouth
09-08-2004 5:21 PM


This is a very interesting topic. You, Loudmouth, say that revolutions are usually either centered on a cult of personality or a theme. After reading everything else you've said I'm wondering whether you would qualify what Lech Walesa did with his labor union in communist Poland as a revolution. If so, under which catagory: cult or theme?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 09-08-2004 5:21 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 80 (141170)
09-09-2004 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Hangdawg13
09-08-2004 8:47 PM


Wow, this makes two issues that you and Crashfrog basically agree with me on now.
Believe me, I have noticed and I was thinking of mentioning it in my last post. I even considered giving your last post a POTM, because even if I disagreed with it, I thought it was well written and makes people think.
You have improved your writing and that is cool. Hang in there.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-08-2004 8:47 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024