Radical politics

[Vitriol]

I'm still having trouble following you, I'm afraid. You seem to be drawing a distinction between "social issues" and "political issues" and it's tempting to jump on that. But it seems you are saying that we can't consider anti-slavery activism to have been an extremist individualist stance at any point in history because it eventually became mainstream? That's precisely my point, though. I mean, how do we know that the positions that you view as extremist, and thus unworkable, right now won't eventually become similarly nebulous and broadly supported across the spectrum? By that standard, it's impossible to say that any position is extremist, because we don't know how it will be adapted in the future.

there is a difference between a political system and a social policy. I believe that societies that adopt extreme political positions (specifically anarchism and communism) invariably fail and that this is a constant throughout history. Extremist postions in political theory cannot become nebulous because they are fixed anarchism is no effective state enforcement and communism is an all encompassing state as i believe these theories can never in practice survive they can never become the norm as they are inherently unsustainable. I don't dispute that there can be drift with what is considered normal on the spectrum between libertarianism and socialism and for that reason i would not describe either of those as extreme or radical.
On the other hand I believe social issues are a matter of perspective and one cannot predict that they will cause a failure purely by being different to the accepted standard.

 

[AP 297]

I'm still having trouble following you, I'm afraid. You seem to be drawing a distinction between "social issues" and "political issues" and it's tempting to jump on that. But it seems you are saying that we can't consider anti-slavery activism to have been an extremist individualist stance at any point in history because it eventually became mainstream? That's precisely my point, though. I mean, how do we know that the positions that you view as extremist, and thus unworkable, right now won't eventually become similarly nebulous and broadly supported across the spectrum? By that standard, it's impossible to say that any position is extremist, because we don't know how it will be adapted in the future.

That is the issue. A majority of people must eventually come around and accept way of thinking in order for the "radical" policy to become mainstream. The abolition of slavery itself while morally correct to us now, had to be accepted by most people. Without that acceptance towards the policy, it was never capable of being enacted. America is sad proof of that. When slavery was abolished much of the spirit of the radical policies were watered down with compromise and concessions. Plessy V. Ferguson severely reduced the impact of the radical measures. While these radical measures were good and positive, they were none the less undesired by many of the people in the south when they were enacted. While the correct thing to do, sadly it was too much too soon. People were addicted to cheap labor in the south. Through segregation and an number of other policies it was able to continue.

Radical is not bad and what the majority of people find acceptable is not always correct. It is a matter of what is enforceable and what people are willing to tolerate.

there is a difference between a political system and a social policy. I believe that societies that adopt extreme political positions (specifically anarchism and communism) invariably fail and that this is a constant throughout history. Extremist postions in political theory cannot become nebulous because they are fixed anarchism is no effective state enforcement and communism is an all encompassing state as i believe these theories can never in practice survive they can never become the norm as they are inherently unsustainable. I don't dispute that there can be drift with what is considered normal on the spectrum between libertarianism and socialism and for that reason i would not describe either of those as extreme or radical.
On the other hand I believe social issues are a matter of perspective and one cannot predict that they will cause a failure purely by being different to the accepted standard.

To me policy and political systems go hand in hand. They each stem from the same source what the general public will sacrifice and allow their leaders to get a way with.

If people are not willing to tolerate it, the laws and spirit of them will be violated by either a lack of enforcement, revolt, or internal sabotage.

 

[AnOminous]

The success of society is totally irrelevant.

A theory which says its actual results in reality are irrelevant is barely worthy of serious consideration.

 

[Vitriol]

That is the issue. A majority of people must eventually come around and accept way of thinking in order for the "radical" policy to become mainstream. The abolition of slavery itself while morally correct to us now, had to be accepted by most people. Without that acceptance towards the policy, it was never capable of being enacted. America is sad proof of that. When slavery was abolished much of the spirit of the radical policies were watered down with compromise and concessions. Plessy V. Ferguson severely reduced the impact of the radical measures. While these radical measures were good and positive, they were none the less undesired by many of the people in the south when they were enacted. While the correct thing to do, sadly it was too much too soon. People were addicted to cheap labor in the south. Through segregation and an number of other policies it was able to continue.

Radical is not bad and what the majority of people find acceptable is not always correct. It is a matter of what is enforceable and what people are willing to tolerate.



To me policy and political systems go hand in hand. They each stem from the same source what the general public will sacrifice and allow their leaders to get a way with.

If people are not willing to tolerate it, the laws and spirit of them will be violated by either a lack of enforcement, revolt, or internal sabotage.

I agree with this. its perhaps worth pointing out that this discussion grew out of me stating that i think radical policies are inherently unworkable without clarifying that i was referring to the radical political theories anarchism and communism specifically and not just anything that deviated from the norm.

hence why im drawing a distinction here- something like slavery or colonialism while having elements of politics,social issues and economics entwined is not in and of itself going to necessarily cause a society to fail whereas either no state or an absolute state will.

 

[Zeorus]

anarchism is no effective state enforcement and communism is an all encompassing state

I think you'd find that most non-Stalinist communists (with the exception of some Maoists) would take great exception to that definition. Even Trots and Leninists these days tend to be very libertarian on social issues. Even in their economic views, most contemporary communists would prefer for economic and labor decisions to be made by workers' councils rather than by an Orwellian boogeyman government.

 

[Vitriol]

I think you'd find that most non-Stalinist communists (with the exception of some Maoists) would take great exception to that definition. Even Trots and Leninists these days tend to be very libertarian on social issues. Even in their economic views, most contemporary communists would prefer for economic and labor decisions to be made by workers' councils rather than by an Orwellian boogeyman government.

Wasn't 'workers councils' how gaddafi ran libya? The fact remains that no command economy has ever been viable in the long term and no communist nation has ever avoided slipping into a controlling nightmare.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

That is the issue. A majority of people must eventually come around and accept way of thinking in order for the "radical" policy to become mainstream.

I don't think anybody's arguing against that.

Radicalism always implies a level or degree of governence (too little or too much) that is outside the regular accepted spectrum of society as a whole at a single point.

Radical politics could be about something only tangentially related to the extent of the state. Radical pacifism, radical environmentalism, or radical nationalism, to take three diverse examples, are all basically statism-neutral. The size of the state is obviously a major political issue but it's not the only one possible, and it's possible for people to have moderate views on the size of the state but radical views in other areas.

Anarchism is I guess what you would characterize as self governance without a state. A state exists because of the level of individual investment each person places into a society. Whenever resources are pooled and people gather in a civilized manner. There is a state.

That may be your definition of the state, but it is not the one most anarchists use, or indeed most non-anarchist political theorists. If we are using your definition, then anarchists aren't anti-state at all.

Wasn't 'workers councils' how gaddafi ran libya? The fact remains that no command economy has ever been viable in the long term and no communist nation has ever avoided slipping into a controlling nightmare.

They may have been called worker's councils, but do you think that's really what they were? Self-organised, self-governing organisations of workers?

 

[Vitriol]

They may have been called worker's councils, but do you think that's really what they were? Self-organised, self-governing organisations of workers?

that is how they began yes, they were initially created to devolve power beyond the level of tribal leaders and in so doing prevent the factionalism that had plagued north african nations. they turned out every bit as controlling as their larger soviet cousins. For the first five to ten years it worked reasonably well, then as always happened human greed kicked in and the extensive power of a one party state allowed them free reign to do as they pleased and they morphed to match all the other oppressive communist states.

whatever one thinks of the theory and the principles behind it, the empirical fact is that in practice communism has failed each and every time it has been implemented.

 

[AP 297]

I don't think anybody's arguing against that.

The problem is that many radicals consider the value of their ideas and their own sense of purpose to be more important than actually convincing people.

They keep their ideas to themselves or conceal their contents because people may misunderstand them. Not all radicals are people persons. This can often lead to groups where resentment grows because no one else "accepts them" when in reality it is the fact that they have never expressed their ideas or were disuaded away from expressing them.

Radical politics could be about something only tangentially related to the extent of the state. Radical pacifism, radical environmentalism, or radical nationalism, to take three diverse examples, are all basically statism-neutral. The size of the state is obviously a major political issue but it's not the only one possible, and it's possible for people to have moderate views on the size of the state but radical views in other areas.

That was part of my point too. Radical just means outside of the current accepted ideological spectrum. Radical can mean anything. People have to accept them though in order for them to be successful in the long term.

That may be your definition of the state, but it is not the one most anarchists use, or indeed most non-anarchist political theorists. If we are using your definition, then anarchists aren't anti-state at all.

The anarchists you are referring to might not be anti-state, but there are others who would love to see the world torn asunder and returned to a state of nature. They are "radical" and they are what we are referring to.

If you are talking about Anarchy-Communism based on Lenin's Dissolution of the State model, sadly it has never worked because of a simple fact. Power is extremely seductive and you can never expect leaders to simply surrender something so incredibly appealing as absolute power. Even Lenin wanted to ultimately return things to a state of nature. The problem is that people want security and power is seductive. Lenin's ideas were sadly a very optimistic fantasy. If you can create a humanity that is capable of resisting the tempting nature of power and resist the urge to use violence as a means of acquisition, then yes a state of nature where people can rule themselves in a civilized manner is a possibility.

Sadly people are just too different from each other for it to work. Nihilism certainly has no place for such a vision. Nihilism places no value in anything. Anything is permissible to a nihilist because nothing is sacred or taboo. There are no rules for them. If you want it, take it. Everything is relative. Killing a person is the same as killing an Ant in the mind of Nihilist, because there is no more value in the life of a person than the life of an ant.

 

[MerriedManJr]

A theory which says its actual results in reality are irrelevant is barely worthy of serious consideration.

I may have worded that badly. Reality isn't irrelevant. It's society which is irrelevant. I'm never going to have control over how society functions. Only a handful of people throughout history can credibly claim to have altered society. So I think that people need to think about themselves because most people, myself included, can only exercise power over themselves. Thinking about the perfect society is like dreaming about what you would do with a billion dollars.

 

[Holdek]

Sadly people are just too different from each other for it to work. Nihilism certainly has no place for such a vision. Nihilism places no value in anything. Anything is permissible to a nihilist because nothing is sacred or taboo. There are no rules for them. If you want it, take it. Everything is relative. Killing a person is the same as killing an Ant in the mind of Nihilist, because there is no more value in the life of a person than the life of an ant.

Nihilists just believe that nothing has any inherent value, only that which people assign. So nihilism doesn't preclude ethics; nihilists would just acknowledge that such ethics are constructed.

 

[DNJACK]

The problem is that many radicals consider the value of their ideas and their own sense of purpose to be more important than actually convincing people.

They keep their ideas to themselves or conceal their contents because people may misunderstand them. Not all radicals are people persons. This can often lead to groups where resentment grows because no one else "accepts them" when in reality it is the fact that they have never expressed their ideas or were disuaded away from expressing them.

This is seen through the idea to democracy: I have long given up on the idea of convincing people. Why would I? I don't need my idea to pass on from people to people: it will come to the right people in time. I don't need approval to live like I want, and my ennemies are not the one sensible to the arguments I would have.

 

[Marvin]

That is the issue. A majority of people must eventually come around and accept way of thinking in order for the "radical" policy to become mainstream. The abolition of slavery itself while morally correct to us now, had to be accepted by most people. Without that acceptance towards the policy, it was never capable of being enacted. America is sad proof of that. When slavery was abolished much of the spirit of the radical policies were watered down with compromise and concessions. Plessy V. Ferguson severely reduced the impact of the radical measures. While these radical measures were good and positive, they were none the less undesired by many of the people in the south when they were enacted. While the correct thing to do, sadly it was too much too soon. People were addicted to cheap labor in the south. Through segregation and an number of other policies it was able to continue.

Actually, I don't think acceptance of abolition was the real problem with reconstruction. It was obvious the south wasn't going to accept equality naturally: they showed that by seceding and declaring war (edit: actually, was war actually declared?) in the first place. Their unwillingness to accept equality naturally doesn't mean things like forced integration aren't necessary. Sometimes you've gotta use force. Honestly, the period immediately after tearing your opponent a new asshole is the perfect time to exercise that force.

I'm more inclined to blame personal failings on the part of politicians. They had an opportunity and they should've taken it.

This is seen through the idea to democracy: I have long given up on the idea of convincing people. Why would I? I don't need my idea to pass on from people to people: it will come to the right people in time. I don't need approval to live like I want, and my ennemies are not the one sensible to the arguments I would have.

Ideas that don't have political feasibility are best described as alternative historical fiction.

 

[DNJACK]

Ideas that don't have political feasibility are best described as alternative historical fiction.

I actually pretty much agree with it, and I've seen so much commies arguing over minor details of things after a robot revolution or whatever, I get the feeling. That's why I don't bother trying to figure out how things would work if things went my way. I just decide which way I'm going. It's not political ideas, it's more of a philosophy of life.

 

[AnOminous]

Actually, I don't think acceptance of abolition was the real problem with reconstruction. It was obvious the south wasn't going to accept equality naturally: they showed that by seceding and declaring war (edit: actually, was war actually declared?) in the first place.

Arguably, South Carolina's declaration of secession would constitute a declaration of war of sorts, but if not, then attacking Fort Sumter clearly established a state of actual war.

 

[Holdek]

attacking Fort Sumter clearly established a state of actual war.

I never understood how Confederates had the brass to call it "The War of Northern Aggression" considering the South literally fired the first shots.

 

[DNJACK]

I learned it as "the war of secession". I think you can't get more neutral terms than that. Civil war imply it's happening in the same country.

 

[AP 297]

Nihilists just believe that nothing has any inherent value, only that which people assign. So nihilism doesn't preclude ethics; nihilists would just acknowledge that such ethics are constructed.

Definition of Nihilism According to Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism

Nihilism nounni·hil·ism\ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\ -

: the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value
: the belief that a society's political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed

1.
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2.
a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination

Actually, I don't think acceptance of abolition was the real problem with reconstruction. It was obvious the south wasn't going to accept equality naturally: they showed that by seceding and declaring war (edit: actually, was war actually declared?) in the first place. Their unwillingness to accept equality naturally doesn't mean things like forced integration aren't necessary. Sometimes you've gotta use force. Honestly, the period immediately after tearing your opponent a new asshole is the perfect time to exercise that force.

I'm more inclined to blame personal failings on the part of politicians. They had an opportunity and they should've taken it.

In this case I would argue that it was the radical idea that was right and the popular mood that was wrong. I said before that radical ideas are not always wrong, they are just difficult to execute without public buy in.

Not enough was done to move the south out of its dependence on cheap labor and its very rigid race based class structure. Northern Politicians did not do enough to try to convince people that ending slavery was something beneficial to Southern Society. More integration should have been employed and more work to develop effective permanent leaders in the region should have been a priority. The South had become a mirrored reflection of Europe and its nobility and shattering those "nobles" should have been a much higher priority. Instead, the "nobles" were compromised with and everything was watered down and returned to the status quo. The South suffered for 100 more years under these corrupt "nobles". The landscape and economies languished under their neglectful hands. If the general public had been engaged rather than ignored in favor of these "nobles" the south would not recovered much more quickly.

There is a darker aspect to why they may not have gone far enough. The sad fact is that when a society of such a few people have such vast amounts of power and no accountability - the general public feels no responsibility to educate itself on the tools of governance. We have seen this a lot in countries that have kings, lords, or dictators deposed. The general public are not capable of governing themselves, because their only model was the one before and it was a despotic one. Dictatorships and Autocracies create very weak people with little initiative. Some may possess physical strength, but there is a lack of individual responsibility or a feeling of personal obligation. This is because the state was always in control and most people never had power before or the burden of its responsibility. It is like some prisoners that have lived in prison for extended periods of time not being able to adapt to life outside, simply from fear of not knowing how to make certain choices or being unsure of how to handle freedom and its inherent responsibilities.

Ideas that don't have political feasibility are best described as alternative historical fiction.

I cannot agree more with that section of your statement.

Radicalism must be counterbalanced with realistic expectations and execution to be effective. Otherwise it is just fantasy.

 

[Holdek]

Definition of Nihilism According to Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism

Nihilism nounni·hil·ism\ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\ -

: the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value
: the belief that a society's political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed

1.
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2.
a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination

Uh...thanks? I was referring to nihilism as a philosophy (1b).

 

[I AM STRAIGHT!!!!]

I like this discussion but I am an extreme realist so all this talk of ideals and execution of ideals doesn't sit well. I'm going to try to spin things around and give a view that faces reality, hopefully without sperging too much.

There is an objective political reality. It is made up of borders, capitals, laws, institutions, armed forces, security apparatuses, loyalties, individuals, groups, a money economy, patronage schemes, and quantities of people. Although it is popular to see politics as an idealistic pursuit, "ideals" per se do not affect any of these directly.

Yet radicalism and radical movements exist. One of my medieval Muslim scholars says, "If all the quantities of wealth, properties, loyal men, soldiers, etc., could achieve absolutely anything, then no ruling house would ever have given up power to another." Only God/natural selection can do absolutely anything. Yet history is littered with fallen dynasties. So apparently we live in an intensely competitive world, and there is some opportunity to decide what we want from the political reality.

I guess what I want to ask is: does it make more sense to criticize the dodo bird, or the wildesbeest? The dodo is gone; nothing you can say can degrade it more than it has been already. God/nature already decided. And there are millions of wildebeest. It doesn't need you to talk it up, and if you need to coexist with it then criticism will be of no use.

So although it popular to say, "I don't think a communist system would work, and it appears that none have," it really isn't up to you. What has competition under natural selection shown us? Communist takeovers succeed sometimes. And notice that Vietnam resisted 3 foreign invasions. Cuba survived in an unstable neighborhood. Russia and China have not been conquered by Turks or seen their independence subverted by capitalists. Communism has proven to be a route from being a colony or a failed state to being viable and independent. Even North Korea, for all its suckiness, has maintained independence and self-sufficiency among powerful neighbors.

How can a state be radical, anyway? A state must be responsible for stability. Does it make sense to criticize it for not engaging in permanent revolution and ultimately killing itself? You would have to be a Trotskyite to do that sincerely. This would be like talking up the dodo.

Think about this: absolute rule is absurd. But rather than say, "that system is absurd," I'm suggesting, "that belief is absurd." It's impossible. You would have to be some superhuman, like Magneto and Professor X put together.

Notice that monarchies and patriarchies have ruled most people on earth since prehistory, yet "absolute monarchy" was not described until the 1600s in France. So why describe it that way? Every ruler depends on networks of supporters. The difference between "constitutional" and "absolute" forms is that the constitutional ruler has learned to let his power rest on regular (ie lawful, hierarchic) institutions that protect his rule as well as stand up to him; whereas the absolutist has not found the courage or interest to do this (he keeps an informal, irregular network).

This is true of fascism and communism as well. Everyone wants to say fascism and communism are about statism, but they can only be pursued through anarchy. No elite class will hand over their property to a revolutionary party, nor will some bourgeois parliament dissolve itself. The party will have to use its competitiveness and ability to act spontaneously to break the law and take over (ie anarchy). This is why Marx was openly anarchistic, although he is seen differently now. And how could Hitler have taken over while practicing statism? He didn't use state organs to pass legislation, file official decrees, and dispatch the police. He used his own personal following to terrorize, intimidate, and seize. This is anarchy, not statism.

My point is, rather see some "radical political system" as hypocritical or faulty, see it as a reflection of someone's political agenda at a particular moment. Do not see radicalism as an attempt to install the perfect system. That's an absurd proposition that makes everyone wrong. Radicalism is an attempt to overthrow what is in place. This makes a lot more sense and allows you to appreciate radical movements as things that can matter in reality.

tl;dr: Radicalism is a ruse; a pitch tailored to a particular end in particular circumstances.