Reply to DingoJones
I think that the term is meant in a more colloquial sense. He seems to imply that they're necessarily coercive. I don't know that that is the case necessarily, but most political organizations are a little too coercive by my estimation. Granted, I mostly just mill about the Left, but I can't imagine that the Right could at all be better.
I think that the term is meant in a more colloquial sense. He seems to imply that they're necessarily coercive. I don't know that that is the case necessarily, but most political organizations are a little too coercive by my estimation. Granted, I mostly just mill about the Left, but I can't imagine that the Right could at all be better.
Hows about you define just exactly what a "racket" is in this context.
I dont think that kind of coercion is avoidable for groups of humans. Meaning, if politics is a “racket”, then all social organisations are and whats more any kind of grouping situation is as well. Humans say things, do things and other humans listen and copy those things.
Reply to T Clark
I think that he means to imply that they're like mafia rackets. A "racket" is like an esoteric coeterie that conscripts others into doing its bidding via covert forms of coercion. He doesn't really mean what a racket actually is. He's just referring to what people think of when they think of "rackets".
Reply to DingoJones
I don't necessarily agree. I think that all people want to engage in politics without coercion. The freedom from coercion is the primary demand of all people at all times. It's more or less the predicate for politics. You are at all engaged in political acts because you necessarily demand to be free from coercion.
In On Organization, Jacques Camatte basically calls all political organizations "rackets".
Let's start with a basic definition:
dictionary:an illegal or dishonest scheme for obtaining money. "a protection racket"
synonyms: criminal activity, illegal scheme/enterprise, fraud, fraudulent scheme, swindle, scam, rip-off; shakedown
"he was accused of masterminding a gold-smuggling racket"
"Racket" may be used in a 'self-disparaging way; when some one says, "I'm in the insurance racket", they mean that's their line of work.
Political parties might qualify as rackets IF they engage in illegal schemes to obtain money. The law is such that political parties have numerous ways of obtaining money without the violating campaign laws. Political parties are more likely to qualify as "rackets" if they regularly raise money on the understanding that they will pursue a designated policy, then do nothing in pursuit of said policy, or worse, pursue politics opposite the designated policy.
Idealists are most likely to think political parties are rackets. Realists understand that politicians generally serve the interests of wealthy and economically powerful individuals and groups, and they expect politicians and political parties to behave in their usual and customary groveling and ass-licking manner.
I don't necessarily agree. I think that all people want to engage in politics without coercion. The freedom from coercion is the primary demand of all people at all times. It's more or less the predicate for politics. You are at all engaged in political acts because you necessarily demand to be free from coercion.
I don't think this is correct as a descriptive statement of sociology, though I can see it's moral appeal.
The primary demand of all people at all times is food, shelter and some level of comfort. Freedom from coercion is, historically, rarely the concern of the majority of people. Most movements for political freedoms were carried by a relatively privileged class of people. There are exceptions, of course. One can argue that this has merely practical reasons, since a subsistence farmer has little time to devote to political campaigns, but it's difficult to determine what said farmer really desires.
The thing about politics and coercion is that, fundamentally, politics as a description of behaviour, is about achieving your goals. That's more or less the only unifying factor in all kinds of "political" acts. Since there wouldn't be much need for politics if everyone agreed from the outset, politics will always be concerned with getting people to do what you want them to do. This isn't necessarily coercive. But it's clearly conductive of coercion.
Reply to Echarmion
You're probably right about that that might not necessarily be the case. I think that I just want for that to be predicate for politics. In a political sense, however, I think that you do always demand negative freedoms. It may not be primary, but it is always demanded. There can be no agreeable terms otherwise.
So, can we say that political organizations aren't necessarily rackets, but always hazard becoming them?
Comments (8)
When they are run by racketeers, yes.
I think that the term is meant in a more colloquial sense. He seems to imply that they're necessarily coercive. I don't know that that is the case necessarily, but most political organizations are a little too coercive by my estimation. Granted, I mostly just mill about the Left, but I can't imagine that the Right could at all be better.
Hows about you define just exactly what a "racket" is in this context.
I dont think that kind of coercion is avoidable for groups of humans. Meaning, if politics is a “racket”, then all social organisations are and whats more any kind of grouping situation is as well. Humans say things, do things and other humans listen and copy those things.
I think that he means to imply that they're like mafia rackets. A "racket" is like an esoteric coeterie that conscripts others into doing its bidding via covert forms of coercion. He doesn't really mean what a racket actually is. He's just referring to what people think of when they think of "rackets".
I don't necessarily agree. I think that all people want to engage in politics without coercion. The freedom from coercion is the primary demand of all people at all times. It's more or less the predicate for politics. You are at all engaged in political acts because you necessarily demand to be free from coercion.
Let's start with a basic definition:
Political parties might qualify as rackets IF they engage in illegal schemes to obtain money. The law is such that political parties have numerous ways of obtaining money without the violating campaign laws. Political parties are more likely to qualify as "rackets" if they regularly raise money on the understanding that they will pursue a designated policy, then do nothing in pursuit of said policy, or worse, pursue politics opposite the designated policy.
Idealists are most likely to think political parties are rackets. Realists understand that politicians generally serve the interests of wealthy and economically powerful individuals and groups, and they expect politicians and political parties to behave in their usual and customary groveling and ass-licking manner.
I don't think this is correct as a descriptive statement of sociology, though I can see it's moral appeal.
The primary demand of all people at all times is food, shelter and some level of comfort. Freedom from coercion is, historically, rarely the concern of the majority of people. Most movements for political freedoms were carried by a relatively privileged class of people. There are exceptions, of course. One can argue that this has merely practical reasons, since a subsistence farmer has little time to devote to political campaigns, but it's difficult to determine what said farmer really desires.
The thing about politics and coercion is that, fundamentally, politics as a description of behaviour, is about achieving your goals. That's more or less the only unifying factor in all kinds of "political" acts. Since there wouldn't be much need for politics if everyone agreed from the outset, politics will always be concerned with getting people to do what you want them to do. This isn't necessarily coercive. But it's clearly conductive of coercion.
You're probably right about that that might not necessarily be the case. I think that I just want for that to be predicate for politics. In a political sense, however, I think that you do always demand negative freedoms. It may not be primary, but it is always demanded. There can be no agreeable terms otherwise.
So, can we say that political organizations aren't necessarily rackets, but always hazard becoming them?