What Is Your Political Affiliation?

Vicccard said:

In fact my perfect world is one in which there is no need for a state at all. A world where each person respects the rights of others, and works out their problems peacefully.

Click to expand...

Well, you know, if only. Sadly we live in the real world.

Click to expand...

What does this even mean? What does it prove that "we live in the real world"? What is the logical outcome of real world?

this only goes to show how conservative the human mind can get. What is unknown is "unreal" and "not possible"...it is a subconscious way of legitimizing our current epoch.
How can one individual in his mind calculate everything and know for sure the "reality", the natural outcome of what it is to be a human? How can you prove it? Has this individual experienced all existence of humanity and learned for sure what we can and can't do?
Or is this a manifestation of patriarchal upbringing that tells one to "get your feet on the ground boy!" but also makes us loyal obeying people incapable of critical thinking...

You're sounding like the postmodernist here.

I used to be a rigid Marxist, I am trying to make my peace with post-modernism and post-marxism....I have a position in between that is rooted in Frankfurt School's critical thinking.

Conservative? Realistic would be more appropriate. Believe me, I'm pretty idealistic, it's just that I already live in my ideal world: A proper democracy with good balance of power, social care and respect for human rights and freedoms. I want everyone to experience that freedom and those rights.

'Oh, but this anarchist/socialist/classic liberal world is much better!'

Yeah, maybe in your dreams. Maybe in some book. But like I said, this is the real world. Millions of people have died trying to create 'a better world', and every time they have failed. If socialism, anarchism, marxism, et cetera, if they would work so grandly as every armchair-revolutionary has ever told me, then why has every attempt to create such a society ended in failure? Why is that the countries where all those movements arose or got to power, are among the least democratic and free countries in the world? The capitalist world crushed them trough secret conspiracies?

ColonicAcid said:

Why am I being lumped into the same group as communists.
I'm not an edgelord. ;_;

Click to expand...

If you would like to elaborate more, I could change the poll if your elaboration makes sense to me. The categories given are deliberately broad and it is assumed there are ideological opponents even within each.

BlackTide said:

Classical being your standard property rights, Natural Laws, Liberty, 'Tabula Rasa', Laissez-Faire Liberalism
NeoLiberalism is a more economic identification dealing mostly with market-liberalisation, privatisation, economic freedoms but crucially with more government guidance in the economy.
New Liberalism or Welfare Liberalism sees a stronger role for government in social and economic affairs.

Click to expand...

Just for clarification for everyone n regards to the thread's poll, the terminology used here would translate to the poll as follows: Classical = Libertarian/Classical Liberal, NeoLiberalism = Liberal, New Liberalism = Social Democrat.

-

It's good to see this thread revived. The time in between new political threads or necros always gives me time to update my understanding and bring new thought to discussion. 

Vicccard said:

-

Click to expand...

Are you standing by the statement that we have reached a 'peak political nature' as humanity? I think there is still quite a distance in political progress before we even reach near any peak development. While I believe there is a linear progression towards bettering political organization, societies and states do not commonly follow this linear path and often fall into regression of freedoms and equality from lapses in prosperity or changes in the balance of power. Because of this, political struggle is a constant struggle, and not one which can be achieved and sustained without activism. While I disagree with the majority of Thomas Jefferson's rhetoric, I do agree with what he was trying to get at with his quote of "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Now, this does not mean we should strive for violence to solve problems created by faulty political structure, and I believe that has been the error of many revolutionaries and reformers. Violence should always be a last option and one oriented around self-defense and never aggression. Though examining political history I do believe violence is continually a very likely probability, though one that can be reduced or minimized through better methodology and ideology. And that is the great debate for politics - what is the bets methodology and ideology  to follow to achieve this?

We did not reach a standard of republicanism and proliferation of the tenant of democracy in developed countries without struggle, and unfortunately without violence and the death it brought. Half of politics is examining historical context. There were many failed republics, each with their own respective body counts - the two most prominent examples in my mind being Revolutionary France and the SPQR.

Of course there must be activism. Democracy thrives around activism - And it's the best system precisely because it allows the maximum amount of activism by every political ideology. Socialism believes that at some point, we will reach the perfect society and all political ideologies, differences and opinions that aren't socialist will somehow disappear?

I agree with you that politic is a concept that develops. I do not know where we will be in 200 years. I just know where we are now, and currently I prefer my society over an attempt to create socialism, anarchism, libertarianism etc. in practice. Men have fought for that and failed miserably. Men have fought for our society, and guess what, succeeded.

Vicccard said:

Conservative? Realistic would be more appropriate. Believe me, I'm pretty idealistic, it's just that I already live in my ideal world: A proper democracy with good balance of power, social care and respect for human rights and freedoms. I want everyone to experience that freedom and those rights.

'Oh, but this anarchist/socialist/classic liberal world is much better!'

Yeah, maybe in your dreams. Maybe in some book. But like I said, this is the real world. Millions of people have died trying to create 'a better world', and every time they have failed. If socialism, anarchism, marxism, et cetera, if they would work so grandly as every armchair-revolutionary has ever told me, then why has every attempt to create such a society ended in failure? Why is that the countries where all those movements arose or got to power, are among the least democratic and free countries in the world? The capitalist world crushed them trough secret conspiracies?

Click to expand...

Its sad because you are taking what I am saying the wrong way....besides, who said I was suggesting a superior world system? Why is a powerful country a good example of "idealized" life? Who says so?
Why does there have to be a country even?  Countries are there merely to organize social-economic activity...not so that we beat others and smash them to hell....the amount of indoctrination made many think like all nations are in a competition to destroy others or something...another legacy of bourgeoisie ideology. Because they were competing with each other...its remarkable how much we internalized that mindset.

Vicccard said:

Of course there must be activism. Democracy thrives around activism - And it's the best system precisely because it allows the maximum amount of activism by every political ideology. Socialism believes that at some point, we will reach the perfect society and all political ideologies, differences and opinions that aren't socialist will somehow disappear?

I agree with you that politic is a concept that develops. I do not know where we will be in 200 years. I just know where we are now, and currently I prefer my society over an attempt to create socialism, anarchism, libertarianism etc. in practice. Men have fought for that and failed miserably. Men have fought for our society, and guess what, succeeded.

Click to expand...

Personally I believe it is a bit fruitless to speculate on what an eventual stateless society would be like, though I do think the 'how' of this will be through creation of post-scarcity from advances in technology. Those advances in technology however are probably in humanity's thousand-year future. It's hardly relevant to any short-term political progress. In relevance to political progression, that's somewhere within a hundred years in my mind. So the concept of the stateless society (communism in full or however you would like to term it) is a concept that is setup as a sort of 'finish line' rather than a practical goal.

The simplest way of summarizing socialist and communist short-term goals is their idea that the economic structure of society has not democratized as well as the political structure. This has fed back into the political structure and made itself less democratic and weakened the progress that has been made in it through the representation system of republics. The issue currently is that the common citizen has been political disenfranchised because there do not have economic mobility in the same margin that they have political equality.

I do believe there are definitely times where the risk of revolutions and reforms far outweighs the rewards it can bring if it succeeds. Though these times are typically immediately after dramatic changes in political structure. As of today, it has been an extensive period since we have had such a dramatic change - late 18th century to mid 19th century. The establishments that we currently have in place today suffer from what I call 'political decay' which is corrected by what most would call a 'shake-up' or a 'fresh start' (I need to refine that statement, lack of terminology). Now, not every country, in my mind, should be moving towards reform or revolution, as per the risk and reward consideration, but I do believe that universally human society has serious flaws that need to be corrected before they cause universal harm - biggest example being an economy based on perpetual growth that has developed a boom/bust cycle. Though I do think that that it is the harm that the future crises will cause will be the propellant to initiate radical change.

Dogukan said:

besides, who said I was suggesting a superior world system?

Click to expand...

I think this is a good point that my thoughts want to expand on, because I do believe the current system, which we are technological and practically capable of, can not be beaten by other systems in terms of growth. This growth however has many pitfalls, the largest in my mind being war and ill-effects on standards of living. Though we simply do not need growth at this stage, our focus as a society needs to shift from growth to efficiency, specifically efficient sustainability. “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.”

I don't think all nations are in a competition to destroy each other. I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread thinks that. Hell, I wonder if ANYONE thinks that. The last time I checked, Belgium isn't pointing weapons at the Netherlands at all times.

Though I do think that that it is the harm that the future crises will cause will be the propellant to initiate radical change.

Click to expand...

Hmm I can agree with this. However, looking at political developments now and the rise of populist parties, society is not moving any closer to changing that economical system. It has passed that point, the point of 'who gets what'. We're now at the point of 'who is part of us'.

Dogukan said:

Personally, I firmly believe that the State should largely seek to implement negative freedoms as described by Blacktide.
I do not think it should be a state's prerogative to go and try modifying the society which it is meant in the first place to protect.

I think the entire purpose of a state is to act as the strong arm which serves its inhabitants by protecting them from harm via a monopoly of force.
The ideal state in my mind is one which has the power to protect its inhabitants from any foreign or domestic threat, but does not seek to change the society itself. I think it is the job of private persons to build their own culture and economy.

In fact my perfect world is one in which there is no need for a state at all. A world where each person respects the rights of others, and works out their problems peacefully.

Click to expand...

This is exactly why post-modernism or liberalism had became conservative and left its revolutionary role. You view current society as a natural manifestation of humanity and seek to find mechanisms that will preserve what we have as its the natural law of things. What you are not considering is that, "preservation of society", in itself is an ACTIVE role...no matter how much you claim to distance from manipulating society, just by preserving the existing order, you are "enforcing" something upon it.
New generations that are born into this take everything for granted unless they study....alternatives are just intellectual arguments that carry no meaning. This is an inherently conservative stance, EVEN if society we are talking about is highly -free- by our current standards.

That is because our standards are shaped by social norms which are in return shaped by society we are born into.

Long story short, I doN't believe there is a natural social order...there is only what we make of it. And belief in a natural order where state only maintains what exists is delusional. Each centralized nation state with its constitution and laws schools and taxation represent a structure which constantly&ACTIVELY reproduces itself.

Click to expand...

I see.
So what do you think of Switzerland? Their entire state is founded upon the principle of direct democracy. Do you consider that nation to be the same as the others around it, or no, and why?

The government itself, the military, and all major state issues and their actions are decided by referendum.
Votes are made on social legislation(Abortion? Taxation? Welfare?), military procurement(What Jets, how many?), and sometimes things that affect foreign affairs(Do we let these refugees in? Declare war?) to name a few things. It seems to be working out very well for them. I traveled there and stayed for a couple weeks when I was in Europe, and it seemed to me the happiest place on Earth.

So unlike many of the nations around it, it trusts the common people not to need some government representative to make decisions for them(At least, to a far greater degree). There are elected government representatives mind you, who I assume have the roles of guiding, and discussing publicly legislation which the people vote on.

I really like this idea, despite the inherent possibility that it could result in socialist state structures which I disagree with. I simply appreciate this freedom for the individual to choose for themselves.
Frankly, direct democracy seems to me to be the way of the future.

Rallix, the Rojava I was talking about is heavily influenced by Swiss Canton system(as well as Zapatistas in Mexico and other movements in Latin America). The fundamental difference is they are also anti-capitalists for capitalism itself has an anti-social nature.
But they do not solve their issue by nationalizing means of production, instead they created cooperatives and communes and councils where everybody manages their own life...essentially,it is communism if private property over means of production is gone completely. Its doing pretty good so far though as you might have heard, there is still a war there with ISIS.

I am planning to take active part in the movement there by becoming an academic.

This place?

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/18/syria-abuses-kurdish-run-enclaves

"Kurdish authorities running three enclaves in northern Syria have committed arbitrary arrests, due process violations, and failed to address unsolved killings and disappearances, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today."

Also, it has to be mentioned that Switzerland  has a long tradition of democracy and uncomparably higher standard of living compared to other European countries. Direct democracy may work here and there but I dont believe it to be the right way in any foreseeable future for most (European, mind you) countries.

BlackTide said:

This place?

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/18/syria-abuses-kurdish-run-enclaves

"Kurdish authorities running three enclaves in northern Syria have committed arbitrary arrests, due process violations, and failed to address unsolved killings and disappearances, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today."

Click to expand...

PYD represents the state mechanism and they know it....you should check the grassroots mechanism they are establishing. They are trying to eradicate the role of the state. It is a transitional process in a war-zone...there arent really violent crimes reported by the establishment there...there might have been few instances but it certainly does not characterize the movement.

"The 107-page report, “Under Kurdish Rule: Abuses in PYD-Run Enclaves of Syria,” documents arbitrary arrests of the PYD’s political opponents, abuse in detention, and unsolved abductions and murders. It also documents the use of children in the PYD’s police force and armed wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG)."

Sounds to me like typically brutal transition into communism. That's hardly the kind of conduct that one ought praise and certainly not a 'transitional process' that I would like to undertake. I don't feel like I'm missing out on much.

Dogukan said:

Rallix, the Rojava I was talking about is heavily influenced by Swiss Canton system(as well as Zapatistas in Mexico and other movements in Latin America). The fundamental difference is they are also anti-capitalists for capitalism itself has an anti-social nature.
But they do not solve their issue by nationalizing means of production, instead they created cooperatives and communes and councils where everybody manages their own life...essentially,it is communism if private property over means of production is gone completely. Its doing pretty good so far though as you might have heard, there is still a war there with ISIS.

I am planning to take active part in the movement there by becoming an academic.

Click to expand...

So, instead of a central state control of capital, there is local/regional government control of capital?
And these little communes have some form of democracy? Or am I misguided?

Rallix said:

Dogukan said:

Rallix, the Rojava I was talking about is heavily influenced by Swiss Canton system(as well as Zapatistas in Mexico and other movements in Latin America). The fundamental difference is they are also anti-capitalists for capitalism itself has an anti-social nature.
But they do not solve their issue by nationalizing means of production, instead they created cooperatives and communes and councils where everybody manages their own life...essentially,it is communism if private property over means of production is gone completely. Its doing pretty good so far though as you might have heard, there is still a war there with ISIS.

I am planning to take active part in the movement there by becoming an academic.

Click to expand...

So, instead of a central state control of capital, there is local/regional government control of capital?
And these little communes have some form of democracy? Or am I misguided?

Click to expand...

Each area is divided into communes. Each commune is independent and has its own cooperative. Commune decides everything collectively. They are coordinated at the upper local council which in return coordinate at the parliament level.

The idea is to empower the local autonomy more and more in time until the state withers away...but in the middle of a war this is impossible to do. Especially when you have to coordinate a war effort to make sure the cantons protect themselves form outside invasions.

Most economy is agriculture so yes, capital is controlled collectively, no one owns anything.
But there are still some private property leftover, but most of the regime aligned rich men have left the area due to war....unlikely for them to come back there anytime soon.
They have abolished wage-labor instead of private-property. So they are enforcing private capital into communal economy by not letting them trade or hire labor.
This idea came out from latin america mostly.....
its communism without taking authority, because once authority is taken neither class nor state could be abolished...so the idea is to rather change the local labour, to change the nature of capital.
This would get me into a lot of marxist terminology but thats the idea...because 20th century communism and soviet model/leninism(and later stalinism) was mostly a product of revolution through taking ultimate power....these movements say that taking power is risky and we should first change the labour.

BlackTide said:

"The 107-page report, “Under Kurdish Rule: Abuses in PYD-Run Enclaves of Syria,” documents arbitrary arrests of the PYD’s political opponents, abuse in detention, and unsolved abductions and murders. It also documents the use of children in the PYD’s police force and armed wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG)."

Sounds to me like typically brutal transition into communism. That's hardly the kind of conduct that one ought praise and certainly not a 'transitional process' that I would like to undertake. I don't feel like I'm missing out on much.

Click to expand...

You are presenting now an ideological prejudice. I believe it is highly interesting and means a lot for all of our future. The project there has the potential to change the whole world for the better.
Sure, it is likely to fail...but there isn't much point in bringing a prejudice of this sort if you are serious about discussing stuff. Its a unique event in the 21st century that actually has changed something.

for those interested in the revolution in Rojava, I suggest these:

http://new-compass.net/articles/communalist-alternative-capitalist-modernity

http://new-compass.net/articles/bookchin-%C3%B6calan-and-dialectics-democracy


though Kurdish national question is a big part of the movement, it is not about establishing a central-nation state..it is about getting rid of them all, starting from Kurdish regions.
They also call it a women's revolution....I cannot understand why people do not realize the extend of what is happening there at the moment, but anyone who wants to seriously think about society should give it a look.

I actually like this communalist idea. And that's the first time I've said that about any political idea in a while. The only 2 problems I see with it are this: Decisions would take forever to be made (as it seems that every community would have to vote on it), and that Communism doesn't seem to work. What I mean is if capital is controlled by the community (communistic), and everyone is more or less equal in an economic sense, wouldn't that cause people to work less hard. If one person works very hard, but gets paid as much as someone who just barely makes his quota, what's the point in working hard at all. This seems to be an inherent problem with Communism.

Well, there's the crazy idea that maybe working hard is not the point of life neither the best way imaginable to spend your time.