Principles of Politics
Around 12,000 years ago when human beings discovered agriculture and started settling, populations began to expand and this had enormous implications for social organization. This is arguably the beginning of politics.
The word politics comes from Greek, relating to affairs of the city -- the "polis." One of the first analyses of city affairs, as a distinct object of study, was conducted by Aristotle -- the Politics.
Within cities and, later, within nation-states, where populations are very large, hierarchies of power and authority emerge, classes are formed, and divisions of labor are organized.
All this is obvious, but worth keeping in mind.
Given today's climate, it's worth re-awakening some basic philosophical questions about who and what we are as human beings, what a good life is, where we think we're going, and what values we want to prioritize towards that end -- if for no other reason than informing our political decisions.
A small list of some basic points that I have found useful in my own political thinking is as follows:
1. All power, all authority -- including something as consequential as political power or as microcosmic as personal relationships -- should be questioned for legitimacy.
2. To quote Marx and Engels, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Various classes of people -- conquerors, nobles, aristocrats, priests, plutocrats -- have played the role of the masters of mankind. There has always been a pyramid-like organization, where the vast majority of people are essentially powerless.
3. Rulers have always justified -- to themselves and to the ruled -- their own legitimacy. Whether through the claims of being an embodiment of God, the "divine right or kings," natural law, or merit -- there is always an attempt at rationalization and a pretext for actions.
Applying these abstract premises to the real world -- particularly our current secular, technological situation -- we see them manifest in new ways. Taken out of order, our current "masters of mankind" (#2) are, indisputably, the wealthy. I think George Carlin summed it up nicely in one of his last comedy specials:
[quote=] I'm talking about the real owners now, the real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. [/quote]
How do they justify their position of power (#3)?
They say that it has been earned in a capitalist system -- by hard work, innovation, creativity, the vote of the "free market" -- and, although flawed, that this system benefits all of mankind much more than previous systems. It rises "more people out of poverty" than any other system, and so on.
When questioning the current world rulers and whether their power is legitimate (#1), we can very quickly throw out these flimsy pretexts and intellectual apologists when we simply look around. When we put down our automatic behavior and tacit assumptions for a moment, and look at our real lives, we know very well no matter how happy or comfortable we may be, the vast majority of us are not given the same opportunities or resources that our wealthier neighbors have. When scaled up to the degree of super-wealth -- the wealthiest 0.1% -- the differences are staggering.
We see that the expenses that comprise the "American Dream" -- a house, a car, an education, food, etc -- puts the vast majority of us in debt. We see policies with majority support being completely ignored for the policies favoring the wealthy and powerful.
In conclusion, if one accepts the principles mentioned above and uses them as guides for interpreting our current situation, one cannot help but wonder if we're long overdue for the overthrowing of plutocracy and the system which sustains it (capitalism).
The more we clearly see the problem, the better we can see the solution, formulate appropriate goals towards a solution, and generate corresponding local, individual and collective actions to this end. This cannot happen unless we reawaken our curiosity and start questioning the world. To do so seriously, a framework for this questioning is crucial.
The word politics comes from Greek, relating to affairs of the city -- the "polis." One of the first analyses of city affairs, as a distinct object of study, was conducted by Aristotle -- the Politics.
Within cities and, later, within nation-states, where populations are very large, hierarchies of power and authority emerge, classes are formed, and divisions of labor are organized.
All this is obvious, but worth keeping in mind.
Given today's climate, it's worth re-awakening some basic philosophical questions about who and what we are as human beings, what a good life is, where we think we're going, and what values we want to prioritize towards that end -- if for no other reason than informing our political decisions.
A small list of some basic points that I have found useful in my own political thinking is as follows:
1. All power, all authority -- including something as consequential as political power or as microcosmic as personal relationships -- should be questioned for legitimacy.
2. To quote Marx and Engels, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Various classes of people -- conquerors, nobles, aristocrats, priests, plutocrats -- have played the role of the masters of mankind. There has always been a pyramid-like organization, where the vast majority of people are essentially powerless.
3. Rulers have always justified -- to themselves and to the ruled -- their own legitimacy. Whether through the claims of being an embodiment of God, the "divine right or kings," natural law, or merit -- there is always an attempt at rationalization and a pretext for actions.
Applying these abstract premises to the real world -- particularly our current secular, technological situation -- we see them manifest in new ways. Taken out of order, our current "masters of mankind" (#2) are, indisputably, the wealthy. I think George Carlin summed it up nicely in one of his last comedy specials:
[quote=] I'm talking about the real owners now, the real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. [/quote]
How do they justify their position of power (#3)?
They say that it has been earned in a capitalist system -- by hard work, innovation, creativity, the vote of the "free market" -- and, although flawed, that this system benefits all of mankind much more than previous systems. It rises "more people out of poverty" than any other system, and so on.
When questioning the current world rulers and whether their power is legitimate (#1), we can very quickly throw out these flimsy pretexts and intellectual apologists when we simply look around. When we put down our automatic behavior and tacit assumptions for a moment, and look at our real lives, we know very well no matter how happy or comfortable we may be, the vast majority of us are not given the same opportunities or resources that our wealthier neighbors have. When scaled up to the degree of super-wealth -- the wealthiest 0.1% -- the differences are staggering.
We see that the expenses that comprise the "American Dream" -- a house, a car, an education, food, etc -- puts the vast majority of us in debt. We see policies with majority support being completely ignored for the policies favoring the wealthy and powerful.
In conclusion, if one accepts the principles mentioned above and uses them as guides for interpreting our current situation, one cannot help but wonder if we're long overdue for the overthrowing of plutocracy and the system which sustains it (capitalism).
The more we clearly see the problem, the better we can see the solution, formulate appropriate goals towards a solution, and generate corresponding local, individual and collective actions to this end. This cannot happen unless we reawaken our curiosity and start questioning the world. To do so seriously, a framework for this questioning is crucial.
Comments (53)
Agreed. However, since society, especially American capitalist society, has a heterogeneous demographic as a country, I believe that there is no clear answer to these questions. On top of this demographic makeup, we have people with different career interests, social interests, hobbies, activities, etc. At some point, and no matter what system we are under, there will be conflict amongst these different people in general. We see this all the time. For instance, you already pointed differences between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' in America, and how this contributes to the greater divided in wealth due to debt and other factors for the less fortunate. This is one of the many reasons I think it is vital to act on the notion that politics is a realm where we need to work with the best policies, systems, and leaders we can get. In other words, voting for the lesser of two evils in all scenarios. On top of that, we need to prioritize candidates and policies that are aligned with helping people. If the system is broken, which I believe in some areas it is, then we need to prioritize, demonstrate, motivate people to vote for officials that are aligned, and try our best to elect.
The problem I find interesting in general political philosophy is: attempting to control, eradicate, and block injustice. Yet injustice always persists in any nation, country, and local. There is always a group that is marginalized. There is always someone who is suffering. But this is not an excuse to not keep trying. The journey and ascendence to improve are what life is all about--Nietzsche's Will to Power comes to my mind here as well as Albert Camus's conclusion in The Myth of Sisyphus.
Anyhow, thanks for making this thread. Political philosophy is one of my favorite subjects to plumb the depths of. Cheers!
That's beside the point if the questions aren't being asked.
Quoting The Questioning Bookworm
Sure. And we can do so on tentative assumptions -- we don't have to work out the answer to every question before we act.
Quoting The Questioning Bookworm
Well the main issue, in my view, is power. Whoever controls the major decisions of a society (usually only a "few") wields disproportionate influence over the everyday lives of the "many." Power dynamics and structures are everywhere, from families to marriages to the military to corporations to government. There's nothing necessarily morally "wrong" or "bad" about this. But they should be questioned for legitimacy. If authority, domination, and control are found to be illegitimate, they should then be dismantled, eradicated, blocked, etc.
Quoting The Questioning Bookworm
Thank you -- cheers to you.
I just wanted to add that you provided a very nice analysis.
Thank you, appreciate it!
Thank you for the wonderful reply. Power and its dynamics in politics is definitely the main issue.
There are many aspects of history, of course. Whether class is the issue isn't relevant. What matters is that it is an essential part of the progress of history. It necessarily implies power structures, which I believe is even more fundamental than class. Class is a manifestation of power systems, and so easier to analyze.
I don't see disability or women's rights really being on par with class struggles. Perhaps an argument can be made for the role of thought and ideas, of technology, and of values, but if anything they seem on equal footing.
It all matters. Some aspects are broader than others. Class, when taken as an object in its own right, happens to be one which explains a great deal of historical trends.
Well are you a woman or disabled? If not then of course you wouldn't see these things as important as class, but for those who face those issues daily they can be just as important if not more important than class. It's all about where you're situated in society. Gender and disability related issues can cut across social classes.
I like talking about social class and I certainly view it as relevant. What Marxism does, however, is it places the economic as the essential characteristic of the society as well as human nature. So when you quote Marx is evokes that conception to me. If you simply want to portray social class as one among many in society I'm totally fine with that. Power I think is an interesting issue and I don't think it's completely synonymous with class, although the two are related.
No, but nor do I have to be in order to see that they're much less broad and less impactful than class. I'm not a cooper, either -- and I suppose one could make the argument that barrel-making is on par with class as well -- but we would rightfully laugh at that. There are various degrees of generality we're talking about. This isn't to say women's experiences, or disabled people's experiences aren't important -- they are -- but that they do not account as well for the historical trends as do, say, politics and economics. I think we can all agree with that -- or should. If we get hung up on what "the" essential feature of history is, we won't get off the ground.
There's a reason Marx's analysis was so influential. Nietzsche and Heidegger take a similarly broad view of history as well -- in terms of morals (values) and understandings of "being," respectively -- and are rightly influential because of it.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That's a misrepresentation, in my view. To attribute class to "human nature" doesn't make sense. Class is a kind of social organization and categorization. Perhaps the drive for power, domination and control are aspects of human nature -- but then so is love, cooperation, empathy, etc. Marx's analysis stresses the importance of class in his analysis, but because he's not insane he wouldn't deny other aspects of history or human nature.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I don't think it's synonymous either.
The things is, there never has been a "legitimate" legitimatization. It's not as if Gods or lineage where anything other than a story some people told to give their rule legitimacy.
To put it bluntly, the truth is that ultimately there never has been another legitimisation than holding power. One has the mandate of heaven, until one has not... which is essentially the same as saying one can be in power, until one loses that power.
Our current situation isn't any different from times past. Those in power want to keep it and tell stories to that that effect, and those that don't believe those stories want the ones in power gone because.... well, they want some of that power too.
Questioning legitimacy is fine and all, because there really is no reason to just accept any of it, but i'm not sure what kind of 'solution' you expect? If we ever would manage to overthrow the current rulers you will invariably get a new class of rulers, which will effectively only be legitimized by the fact that they managed to overthrow the previous rules, by power in short... rinse repeat.
Not necessarily. They may simply not want to live under oppression and tyranny.
But yes, almost any system of power since the neolithic revolution has been "justified" in some way, and almost all of it has been completely bogus. That doesn't mean we stop questioning.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
That depends on what you're asking. In the easy case of an Adolf Hitler, I think the solution is easy enough: don't allow people like that to have any power whatsoever.
If someone is a head coach and his team goes 0-12, you're likely to fire the coach. Etc. There are almost infinite solutions. You can't ask about a "solution" in a vacuum -- you have to discuss specific cases.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Says who? This is just a lack of imagination, really. It's been beaten out of people's heads for years, but there are plenty of ways to organize people.
Take corporations. There's no reason why corporate organization has to be a top-down, un-democratic structure. But people don't even consider questioning that because an alternative (to them) is unimaginable. But alternatives do indeed exist.
Take a look at the Spanish Revolution for political organization, too.
True, we can just say that illegitimate power is a fact of human history that will never go away. In that case, go to sleep.
I don't think this is a matter of lack of imagination. There are plenty of alternatives in imagination. I think this is an empirical question. And i've read about it, and have actually seen it happen time and again, no matter what intentions one may have initially, it more or less ends up in the same place.
Quoting Xtrix
No, you misunderstand. In that case, take power yourself... which is the opposite of going to sleep. The thing I take issue with is that you think there is a solution, not the fact that you question legitimacy.
A solution for what? Where do I say I think that? If I had a magic, general solution, I assure you I would have given it by now.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
I was under the impression that you were advocating overthrowing plutocracy because of it's lack of legitimacy.... and so the solution was some sort of legitimate power.
If you were to say I want to overthrow plutocracy because I don't like it, or because it's bad for me and a lot of people, I'd be fine with that. I just don't think the concept of legitimacy does anything really.
Quoting Xtrix
I wasn't doing that. I was saying that according to Marx "human nature" is essentially just the product of the economic system. In evaluating a society, according to Marx, look first and foremost at its economic structure or system. Again, this isn't me this is Marx.
Quoting Xtrix
Tell that to Marx.
I think there could be many reasonable solutions for the particular problems we face, but it takes questioning and working together to discover and implement them. The concept of "legitimacy" you're hung up on is a simple one: asking if this power structure is a legitimate one says is it justified, is it earned, are the decisions being made and actions being undertaken rational ones? etc. If you can justify to someone why you make a decision or take an action, then do so. Orders should be questioned. If you can't, you shouldn't be in power, take that action, etc. Who's the judge and jury? The people are -- namely the people who have to abide by the judgments and decisions of another. The ones who take the orders from above should question not only the orders, but why it is we're listening to this person (or these people) in the first place. Call it whatever you like, but to say you don't think it "does anything" is pretty strange. You do it all the time. Or should, anyway,
I don't see him saying this either, really. Things that may appear "natural" are largely conditioned by economic factors and class, yes. But human beings have been around for 200,000 years, long before any real "economy." Was there no human nature prior to the industrial or agricultural revolutions?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sure. That's quite different than attributing things to "human nature."
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
No need, because he doesn't say this. His famous phrase that "all hitherto history is the history of class struggle" itself is very quickly qualified by Engels in the footnote, but it doesn't mean class struggle is the ONLY aspect of history. An essential one, yes.
There was still an economy at those times, there has always been economy. Marx definitely doesn't believe in any permanent, immutable human nature. I'm just conveying Marx's stance here.
Quoting Xtrix
I don't know what the footnote says because I don't have the text on me, but of course Marx believes in the existence other aspects of human history. It's that he places the economic as the overriding one, i.e. the one which is the ultimate determinant of the others. That's a Marxist view. It's been a while since I've read Marx but make no mistake about it, the economic super-structure of a society is primary, according to Marx. I'm not seeking to misrepresent Marx.
Ok, let me specify that I don't think it does anything philosophically. I don't think you get there by referring back to the concept of justification either. It's not as if there is agreement on what counts as proper justification. 'The people' is an abstraction, there's no such thing. Individual people object to it because they don't like being subject to power or don't like a particular decision for whatever reason. And they can be successful if they can convince enough other people. It's a form of politics in the end. And yes, if I do it, I do it for those same reasons.... if i'm being honest with myself.
Quoting Xtrix
I just want to add that this is a very modern and recent notion, and not something that really plays out like you might think in practice, even today. Very rarely do orders get questioned. In fact I would say in most organisations it is tacitly understood that this is precisely something you do not do.... even if they may pay lip-service to the idea outwardly. And I think the reason for this is a very straightforward one. An organisation where everybody is some kind of philosopher that questions everything all the time (and so also has to be informed enough to be able to judge) just doesn't work as well.
You, and other philosophy hobbyists (not meant insultingly), often fall back on reasoning like this. What difference does it make whether there's "agreement"? Not everyone agrees that Donald Trump is a terrible president. Not everyone "agrees" that the world is round. If you're waiting around for certainty before acting, you'll do nothing indeed.
But of course we dismiss nonsense like this in the real world. If someone orders you to do something, and you believe it unjust, you question the orders. You ask for an explanation until it makes sense to you. It's also context-dependent. Pulling your child by the arm because you're angry that they turned on the television is one thing -- pulling them away because they ran into the street and there's an oncoming car is another. The world is a complex place, and we use practical judgments all the time. So let's take the conversation away from abstract, academic discussion -- where we will find no agreement whatever, and which will divert us from the real situation we find ourselves in, politically or otherwise -- and look to what's actually happening. Let's look to the political and economic structure of our society. Let's look to the structures of our workplaces, where we, in the real world, work for a salary or a wage. Then let's ask if these structures should remain in place or not. If we find that they have no real justification for existing, then we should discuss alternatives.
The notion doesn't play out how you think, because you're certainly not listening to mine.
As far as it being modern and recent -- formulated as such, perhaps. But these issues have been discussed since the Greeks. Justice, politics, power, etc. Hardly "modern."
See I'd like to have this conversation, but I think you are asking the wrong question... and I just can't get past that because i think it skews the dialogue. I think you are making the philosophers mistake (also not meant as an insult btw) that everything can and needs to be justified. I don't think it works like that because any given culture is an ongoing dialogue where things get decided for various reasons over large periods of time, by a lot of different people. Maybe it's a political compromise that an organisation is the way it is, maybe there are practical reasons that aren't readily visible to someone viewing it from the outside, maybe there are reasons long forgotten... or maybe there is indeed no apparent reason at all. In any case, no one persons can possibly know the full reason for how the way things are... and so it's not really a fair question.
I don't think you can really judge these things outside of their particular socio-political context, nor will thinking about or discussing alternatives yield good results without extensively trying them out and seeing what works in practice.
If we take goverment as an example to illustrate the point, the question there is I think not whether or not there is justification to exist or not, or whether or not it should be overthrown because it is oppressive or lacks legitimacy... I think it will exist no matter what, with or without legitimization, and will always be oppressive to some extend. The question for me is rather, and this is more of a republican notion, how can we minimize the oppression? There is no non-existing zero-option which it can be compared to.
So yeah, I don't know how to argue this point any better, it just seems obvious to me that this is not the way to be approaching these issues.
When you tell someone else that they must do (or think) something, it absolutely does call for justification. Xtrix isn’t saying that people need justification for voluntarily participating in the social structures we have, but that the compulsive participation in them needs justification.
E.g. why shouldn’t I just be allowed to keep living where I live unless I pay someone to “let” me? Why should they get to decide that? Not why I should have the permission to pay them to let me, but why I should be obligated to do so.
Because they have the power and you have not, is the short of it.
Why should they let you live there if they could just take your property?
History has been one long struggle to secure more rights for people.
If we are to make abstraction of all of history and pretend like there is a world in which power relations between people don't exist, then I don't think we will get anywhere.
There is no zero-option, I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
That's an answer to why we are required, not why we should be.
Also, given that who has the power is always in the end a question of who has the greatest differential of support minus opposition, the really relevant question is why should we let them have it? Why should most people stand with or at least not against a certain social power structure? "Because they have the power" is no answer to that, because they only have that power because of what people think the answer to that is.
Forget the word "justification," then. Think of it this way: someone tells you to do something, and you question why. The "why?" question is asking for an explanation, a reason, a rationale, or any other way you'd like to phrase it.
I think the real mistake is getting too hung up on words. Yes, that has it's place and is often very important, but in this context it derails the real world situation I'm trying to discuss, which is our current political and economic situation in the United States.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Again, you're off in space. Asking something like "Why do things happen?" isn't even a question. Others are so abstract and general it's nearly impossible to talk about. You have to ask about the real world, which we all live in -- not some hypothetical world. So in this world, there certainly is a reason and a history for the existence of corporate structure. There is a reason we subsidize the fossil fuel industry. There's a reason the wealthiest 0.01% get nearly all the legislation they want passed. Etc. etc. There are all kinds of specific reasons for specific structures -- again, in the real world. It's up to us to ask if we accept them or not. So when Kennedy or LBG told us that by invading Vietnam we were defending Vietnam, we had a choice to accept or reject that explanation. When W. Bush told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that too was a justification for war. We had a choice to accept that or not.
And so on.
I don't understand this attitude of "we'll never know the full reason," etc. It's very strange. Let's keep it down to Earth for a while -- we can discuss more abstract things later.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
And I'm still a bit baffled at that.
No one is pretending this -- quite the contrary. Power structures are indeed real and should be questioned. Authority should be questioned, in general. That's all this principle says. And you yourself use it all the time. You're over-complicating it by getting hung up on the specific wording.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
The only one talking about a "zero-option" is you. No one is advocating for such a thing, whatever it means. Yes, government exists. Power differentials exist. Government, power, and authority should be questioned for legitimacy. The burden of proof is on the person or entity exerting control to show that it is reasonable and justified -- just like in acts of war. Just like when a doctor wants to perform surgery. Just like when there's a ruling from a court.
True, there's always some kind of justification and pretext for all kinds of rotten behavior. It's our job as human beings to decide whether we're convinced by the rationalization or not. Some of the time, the burden can be met. Most of the time, it can't.
I'm not sure at this point what you're arguing against. Perhaps you're doing so for the sake of arguing -- otherwise, I fail to see the trouble, besides confusing the term "justify" with some kind of Socratic philosophical notion.
Thank you.
My point is you or I do not know what the real reasons are. Doesn't it seems strange to you to judge something you only have partial knowledge about at best?
Quoting Xtrix
No you did, in asking for a justification for something to exist. Things exist first, without justification, like governments and rulers, oppressing people... and then we try to make things better. I think you can only make a good evaluation of organisations if you take into account where they come from, what progress has already been made, what can reasonably be expected given that history etc etc...
That was my point, that you seemed to advocate some kind of flat a-historical evaluation via the principles set out in the OP. If that's not what you are advocating, than my point is moot and I apologize for the trouble.
I don't think you should in a moral sense... but there likely will be consequences, so that does seem like an answer to the question of compulsory participation, i.e. because they can make you do it.
E.g. if you could take whatever rich or powerful person and magically erase all memories and records of them, but leave them unchanged, they would suddenly be powerless, with no way of proving that they are owed the obedience they usually get. That shows how their power is entirely a function of people agreeing that they should have power. So we can always ask, why agree to that? Why do they deserve the influence we let them have?
I was just trying to answer your post and it had me think of the last speech of Nicolae Ceausescu where people finally started booing him, eventhough he had lost majority support by a lot probably years before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWIbCtz_Xwk
So yes why do we let them? Public opinion is a funny thing, it can already be enough that people merely think other people believe in the powers that be, eventhough nobody really does.
So to answer your question, you're an anarchist and don't believe in legitimacy right? Well I don't think they ever really deserve it either... they stay in power because of fear mostly and secondly because of some people having vested interests in the powerstructure .
Others have had liberation movements as well. Gay liberation was a high water mark for me, but it would be absurd to claim it as the driving force behind history. I'm not sure that class struggle is the driving force behind history either.
The idea that there is a "driving force" behind history leads to teleological delusions -- like those embedded in the cliché that so-and-so or such-and-such "changed the course of history". The invention of dynamite changed the course of history. John F. Kennedy's assassination (or 9/11) changed the course of history. Facebook changed the course of history. As if anyone knew where history intending to go before dynamite, JFK, 9/11, or Facebook came along, from outside of history, to redirect the course of time.
History wasn't headed anywhere, so it couldn't change it's direction. Per the Cheshire Cat to Alice, "if you don't know where you are going, it doesn't matter how you get there."
History is what happened, and we don't know what it is until after it happens. Then something else happens. And so on. One damned thing after another.
Still, there are trends. The atmosphere and the oceans are warming up. The population of the globe continues to grow. Every day Amazon sells more stuff. But a trend as seen in the rear view mirror then predicted down the road isn't the same as history going some place.
I believe Marxism does have teleological underpinnings, taking after Hegel who is definitely teleological. Marx basically flipped Hegelism on its head: He replaced the focus on the immaterial and the idealism of Hegel with the materialism of the economic system, but the teleological implications remain, i.e. the idea that history is inevitably trending somewhere.
I think its a very difficult question to ask "What's the driving force behind history? Is it Economics? Sexuality? Gender relations? Etc." So I asked Xtrix how economics is the driving force, and he responded that it was just an "essential" force and not the driving one. I think a lot of people view economics as an essential force, but couldn't we just as easily portray sexuality or gender relations or even the ways in which difference is treated (e.g. disability) an essential force as well? We're all free to choose the lenses through which we view the world.
As for the driving force behind history--maybe a better question would be "What is the driving force behind human affairs?" DNA? Sex? Security (food, clothing, shelter...)? Ego? Economics? Religion? Politics? We became a species and were successful hunter-gatherers for maybe 200 or 300,000 years, during which "economics" was absent. Do those hundreds of thousands of years not count in our reckoning?
I wasn't there so I don't know--and I don't think anybody else does either--why we stopped being successful hunter-gatherers and started becoming successful farmers and villagers. James Scott, Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States thinks that agriculture was more like a conspiracy than an opportunity. It was a way of settling people down and then using them for plutocratic purposes. Whether Scott is right or not, don't know. His is at least an interesting proposal to think about.
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Well, maybe not. We have had hierarchies of prowess, holiness, wealth, strength, and so forth, Classes, if you will, a long time. But to collapse 12,000 years of settled life and then say that what was going on in the wake of the industrial revolution in the 19th century characterizes all of history could be, perhaps, possibly, BOGUS. A mistake. Error. Over-generalization.
(Ok, off to the firing squad with you, Crank -- this is totally heretical and anti-revolutionary thought.)
Yes, we do know what the reasons are. If you're looking for 100% certainty in life, you won't walk out the door, because you don't know for certain if the ground won't cave in. Likewise with real people, in the real world, we know very well what the "real reasons" are behind actions. To take a non-trivial example, the invasion of Iraq -- the reasons were the exploitation of the country's oil fields.
True, you can always counter with "well we don't know with 100% certainty" -- but that's only employed when it's something we don't want to face. We never use it in any other aspect of our lives. It would be absurd. "Well I'm not sure I want to drive to work today, because I don't know for certain if a meteor will hit me."
Trump uses this all the time as well. It's just childish sophistry. I think we should grow out of that.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
When something is supported by overwhelming evidence, no I don't think it's strange. But take this "partial knowledge" attitude about the Holocaust or climate change or the sphericity of earth. All partial knowledge, really. Do we know with 100% certainty that any of this is "real"? Technically (in academic, abstract discussions), no. But who cares? Come back down from space, and those questions disappear.
We know that the wealthiest people get most of the legislation they want. We know rich people get lesser sentences than poor people. We know major shareholders are the ones appointing the boards of directors in corporations. There are all kinds of things in the world that we know. You can see it just by looking -- but there are also systematic studies that confirm the obvious.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I said nothing about "zero-option" -- you did. Your words.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Apology accepted, then. I never once said ANYTHING about an "a-historical" evaluation. There are many, many factors that come into play, and I'm interested in applying the basic principles I mentioned to our current world:
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Bitter Crank
Are you asking me or Marx? If I'm trying to put in a good defense for Marx here I'd say the arrival of homo sapiens, which have always lived in communities. Sure these communities may not have had economies in the sense that we have, but they still needed to ask themselves questions concerning resource distribution and storing resources vs. consuming them immediately. I think humans have always had to make economic choices.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Certainly. It was always my understanding that agriculture allowed for the ancient city-state to flourish. It also tied people to the land. I've never heard that it was a conspiracy but it's an interesting idea.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It's been a while since I've read Marx but I think he does dig into history to try to push for his thesis, like for instance he talks about feudalism at some length. I certainly think one could account for human history in economic terms, as Marx does, but it would seem incomplete.
But yeah, you may not be a rank-and-file Marxist. Off to the firing squad.
Yes indeed.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
It's not that any of those things aren't important, it's a matter of generality. I think economic factors has a wider explanatory breadth. It's like asking about incarceration rates based on race. Well yes, that's true and an important factor. Until you look at class -- which is even more predictive and explains a wider data set.
I think class struggles is one of those factors that is particularly important in studying human history, for these reasons. It accounts for more phenomena. Not everything, of course, but more than the making of shoes -- even though an argument could be made that the history of human beings has been a struggle to make shoes. The reason why this is absurd should be obvious.
The invention of writing, according to the Communist Manifesto. That's what was meant. (Footnote by Engels on page 1.)
Oh thanks I didn't know that.
Quoting Xtrix
It's interesting to me that you say "class struggles" here as opposed to just "class background" or something like that. Do you see Western society as first and foremost characterized by class struggle? It's one thing to recognize class differences and differences in outlook that emerge from that, it's another to describe the class system as a "struggle." Maybe you're seeing something that I am not. I understand that everyone would like more money and we may feel envious, but why consider someone rich an enemy?
Good point -- perhaps "class background" is a better way to say it.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
True...but a pretty compelling historical argument (in my view) can be made that it has indeed been a series of struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. But since there are long periods of stability within any system -- whether with slavery, feudalism, capitalism, etc. -- it's probably not as accurate as saying "class" in general.
You're absolutely welcome to adopt that worldview and plenty of people have. The oppressor/oppressed worldview is, in fact, a compelling narrative because countless people have been drawn into it. Plenty of intelligent posters here use it. I've personally entertained the idea. I ultimately rejected the narrative for a few reasons. I think it's both wrong and toxic, but nonetheless influential.
One of the main points we get from reading Nietzsche is that we come to sever the connection between "weak" and "good." We very often associate these things in our minds, but if I remember correctly Nietzsche associates this connection with living within a Judeo-Christian culture which naturally associates the two. I think severing the association between "weak" and "good" is actually a very profound point that is often overlooked today.
Secondly, if you look to the individual you'll see the individual is really a multitude of identities: We are "oppressors" in some ways and "oppressed" in others. Everybody is like this, unless I suppose you can find yourself a black transgender parapalegic who is also poor, ugly, and fat with a speech disability... you get my point here. If you really want to be serious about pushing for the oppressed vs. oppressor worldview here you gotta take into account everything: class, looks, gender, disability, sexuality, height, family history, etc. After that's done you gotta weight their respective importances: How oppressed is someone who is poor but genetically gifted? How about rich but ugly and short? Who does the weighing is a big sticking point here.
The reality is that basically everybody is oppressed in one way another. Nobody is just a member of a given social class or just a person with a disability or just a good-looking person who therefore has everything in life easy for them. All of this should lead us to considering others on the level of the individual which will always blur this black-and-white notion of oppressed/oppressor The individual contains multitudes and trying to reduce those multitudes so everyone can fit neatly into one of two categories is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
A very important point.
I'm a bit of an odd duck, so the onus is on me to explain myself clearer. Normally what I say doesn't get challenged to this level, so it never matters, but ultimately I agree with Nietzsche as well. I'm not married to the idea that all of history is determined by class or class struggle, although I adopt it as an axiom when analyzing the industrial age (to the present). There is no question in my mind that the true power in the world today lies in the hands of a small group of plutocrats. Thus, I often say I'm an "anarchist pro tem." I think we do need to overthrown the capitalist system and move towards a more collectivist society, as an counterweight to the last 300 years.
The reason this is temporary, however, is that ultimately I believe class, rank, and hierarchy are incredibly important and useful and can be turned into something quite beautiful and remarkable. A look at the Roman era is proof enough that a highly hierarchical society can achieve great things. But this will entail we discard old values and create new ones. But that's another story, when even the overthrowing of capitalism itself is only a pipe dream.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This point is less compelling to me. It's essentially a truism. Yes, of course things don't fall into neat categories. On the other hand, I don't see how anyone can deny where real political power lies -- where the orders are coming from, where the decisions get made, etc. Look no further than the business world today and, within this world, the corporation. Is there any question who is giving the orders and who's following them within a corporation? Sure there's various gradations of rank, but it's still a top-down structure. The majority have no say in the important decisions (what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, what to do with the profits, etc), which lay in the hands of the owners -- the major shareholders (who appoint he board of directions).
That's about as neat and clear a difference as you're going to get, I think. It doesn't always have to be "oppression," either. It's simply one person (or a few) that gives the orders, and one (or many) who follows the orders. One commands, one obeys. That's power dynamics, and that's what is being analyzed. In fact it ultimately overlaps a bit with Nietzsche (and others -- Foucault, etc), who as you know took power as a central theme in his analyzes.
Gotcha - so I think the reason my point here isn't too compelling to you is because you're more talking about the power/powerless distinction rather than oppressor/oppressed. These two are different. The target for the oppressor/oppressed group is often the white, straight, cis male while for the power/powerless group it might be shadowy bankers or whoever holds power. If we're going to talk power we should ditch our discussion of oppressed/oppressor because we're on different territory.
I think power is an interesting topic. I think there's a discussion to be had about power in virtually every society. I understand that corporations are hierarchical, but as a capitalist one of the things I really like about capitalism is the ability of one to find means of income outside of that structure. Nothing in capitalism dictates that you need to work for a corporation, although its certainly a good option for some people because those types of jobs tend to be a little more stable and offer decent benefits.
The existence of strong power imbalances is always worrisome, at least in my opinion. I spent some time in the military, for instance, and when a superior officer gave you an order you had to do it assuming the order wasn't illegal. In the workplace, it's a bit different because you could always quit or try to find another job. There certainly are power imbalances in the workplace, but it's possible that the power imbalance can actually be skewed in favor of the worker, as is the case with unions or if one worker is particularly skilled at something or if there are few workers and many firms looking to hire. Not to mention there's also a certain freedom at only being bound to your contract and not having to stay overtime to attend board meetings or make production decisions... plenty of people just don't care.
I think the divide of power between wealthy and poor, at least in the West, is largely overstated. Wealth alone cannot force a poor man to do anything, and vice versa. In fact, the rich and poor often engage with each other in consensual, common enterprise, whether through employment or other contracts.
No amount of wealth can enslave you or I because the wealthy do not possess a monopoly on violence. The wealthy are subject to the same laws, and, at least where the law is faithfully executed, the same punishments. So I cannot see how the wealthy are the “masters of mankind” when they are unable to force mankind to do anything.
Rather, we must look to which class has expropriated the means of political organization and domination, and have convinced us of its legitimacy. These people can force us to give it our earnings, can imprison us if we disobey, and kill us should it choose to do so.
This master is the state.
“The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad.”
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/oppenheimer-the-state
The amount of evidence one has to overlook to really believe something so naive is staggering.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, the same state that is owned by the wealthy. The same state that gives tax cuts, subsidies, bailouts, etc., to the corporate sector and the wealthiest Americans. The nanny state for the rich -- which to the rich (and the gullible who go along with their logic against their own interests) should be the only property of the state -- is certainly a major instrument in maintaining private power. "Capitalism" wouldn't survive three seconds without it, and they know it.
Little neoliberals like you have all bought into the propaganda of the last 40 years that says that "government is the problem," which is what you're repeating here. That just shows how Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and other peddlers of free-market fantasies -- together with intense media indoctrination -- have influenced the world. That's about all that's interesting, and takes about 30 seconds to figure out.
Run along and vote for Trump again.
Yes, even you could own your own business, your own corporation, and provide meaningful employment to thousands. You could pay livable wages to the poor. You could provide housing, food and other necessities.
But you won’t. Why is that?
It’s because your fake concern for the poor is really self-interest. Little socialists such as yourself want the government to take wealth from others and give to whatever class you like, all so you don’t have to.
More tired neoliberal cliches.
Enjoy four years of Biden.
You lament the wealthy out of one side of the mouth then cheer as you elect the wall-street and corporate candidate.
Enjoy four years of Biden.
Yes, keep being an apologist for corporate ideology and Donald Trump. You forfeited any credibility long ago.