|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 26 2014 07:26 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 05:47 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 05:40 oneofthem wrote:
well ok, not violent, but extremists do not accomplish much without crossing some large threshold whereby they become the ruling group in the revolutionary minority etc.
there's no chance of that happening in the u.s. atm If you look at it with from an historical standpoint, most of the ideas that we now see as normal and worth fighting for were beforehand defended by extremists or minority of some sort. Democracy in France started with years of massacre and terror. This idea that extremists don't achieve much is just a political trend, in reality it is the opposite : the middleground is always the result of the conflict of extremes. Luther King would never have had the political influence he had without Malcolm X and the black panthers, just like Mandela was labelled as a terrorist. confirmation bias examples. extremists do not normally win because of lack of broad/military support. if they somehow get that, it would obv work. which gets to my use of extremist u took issue with. why did i call the protesters at the cops memorial service extremists? because they are actively setting themselves apart from the mainstream view and sympathy. if you find a successful extremist group they prob enjoyed some degree of mainstream support at some point. in the france example we are dealing with a different kindof politcal society so it doesnt really apply. mlk succeeded because he drew sympathy and concern rather than militant confrontation. as soon as he and blacks lost this the progress stopped. something that should be obviouly just like reparation is seen as anathema. i wonder why. the ability to let the ignorant majority see your pov is important for the most crafty of the extremists, read ur gramsci
Your whole point is short sighted. You don't see the fact that an extremist group, while rarely achieving their goals, force the society to take into account some arguments and in the long run the society usually absorb part of their agenda. While the final success usually comes down to the work of institutionnalized movement broadly accepted by the population, the extremists movement usually have a key role in dynamics and public debate.
MLK also succeeded because part of the black community had an agressive stand, which both participated in mobilising the most extreme fringe of the community, while also forcing politics to negotiate with the less extreme members to prevent a global radicalisation of the movement.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
deb, america spend two trillion on medicare and escalators for rich schools. all is well
|
Also it seems like most Western nations are actually on a more racist and xenophobic track again. All these great movements that fought discrimination only worked when it got so bad that even the ignorant people couldn't ignore it any more. I don't think that this is actually acceptable for the people that are already suffering right now. When you hit the point at which you need people like MLK politics has already terribly failed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 26 2014 07:51 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 07:26 oneofthem wrote:On December 26 2014 05:47 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 05:40 oneofthem wrote:
well ok, not violent, but extremists do not accomplish much without crossing some large threshold whereby they become the ruling group in the revolutionary minority etc.
there's no chance of that happening in the u.s. atm If you look at it with from an historical standpoint, most of the ideas that we now see as normal and worth fighting for were beforehand defended by extremists or minority of some sort. Democracy in France started with years of massacre and terror. This idea that extremists don't achieve much is just a political trend, in reality it is the opposite : the middleground is always the result of the conflict of extremes. Luther King would never have had the political influence he had without Malcolm X and the black panthers, just like Mandela was labelled as a terrorist. confirmation bias examples. extremists do not normally win because of lack of broad/military support. if they somehow get that, it would obv work. which gets to my use of extremist u took issue with. why did i call the protesters at the cops memorial service extremists? because they are actively setting themselves apart from the mainstream view and sympathy. if you find a successful extremist group they prob enjoyed some degree of mainstream support at some point. in the france example we are dealing with a different kindof politcal society so it doesnt really apply. mlk succeeded because he drew sympathy and concern rather than militant confrontation. as soon as he and blacks lost this the progress stopped. something that should be obviouly just like reparation is seen as anathema. i wonder why. the ability to let the ignorant majority see your pov is important for the most crafty of the extremists, read ur gramsci Your whole point is short sighted. You don't see the fact that an extremist group, while rarely achieving their goals, force the society to take into account some arguments and in the long run the society usually absorb part of their agenda. While the final success usually comes down to the work of institutionnalized movement broadly accepted by the population, the extremists movement usually have a key role in dynamics and public debate. MLK also succeeded because part of the black community had an agressive stand, which both participated in mobilising the most extreme fringe of the community, while also forcing politics to negotiate with the less extreme members to prevent a global radicalisation of the movement.
disagree. extremists only were able to raise attention to issue if an alternate narrative exists and is acceptable. mlk provided such a narrative and did not allow extremists to force the issue into some sort of battlefield reports. the media is no longer framing the situation within context of depravation of blacks. wihout this this particular extremist movement will find the flashpoint incidents themselves insufficiently persuasive.
politics as an actor is what exactly. define that term.
|
On December 26 2014 07:59 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 07:51 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 07:26 oneofthem wrote:On December 26 2014 05:47 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 05:40 oneofthem wrote:
well ok, not violent, but extremists do not accomplish much without crossing some large threshold whereby they become the ruling group in the revolutionary minority etc.
there's no chance of that happening in the u.s. atm If you look at it with from an historical standpoint, most of the ideas that we now see as normal and worth fighting for were beforehand defended by extremists or minority of some sort. Democracy in France started with years of massacre and terror. This idea that extremists don't achieve much is just a political trend, in reality it is the opposite : the middleground is always the result of the conflict of extremes. Luther King would never have had the political influence he had without Malcolm X and the black panthers, just like Mandela was labelled as a terrorist. confirmation bias examples. extremists do not normally win because of lack of broad/military support. if they somehow get that, it would obv work. which gets to my use of extremist u took issue with. why did i call the protesters at the cops memorial service extremists? because they are actively setting themselves apart from the mainstream view and sympathy. if you find a successful extremist group they prob enjoyed some degree of mainstream support at some point. in the france example we are dealing with a different kindof politcal society so it doesnt really apply. mlk succeeded because he drew sympathy and concern rather than militant confrontation. as soon as he and blacks lost this the progress stopped. something that should be obviouly just like reparation is seen as anathema. i wonder why. the ability to let the ignorant majority see your pov is important for the most crafty of the extremists, read ur gramsci Your whole point is short sighted. You don't see the fact that an extremist group, while rarely achieving their goals, force the society to take into account some arguments and in the long run the society usually absorb part of their agenda. While the final success usually comes down to the work of institutionnalized movement broadly accepted by the population, the extremists movement usually have a key role in dynamics and public debate. MLK also succeeded because part of the black community had an agressive stand, which both participated in mobilising the most extreme fringe of the community, while also forcing politics to negotiate with the less extreme members to prevent a global radicalisation of the movement. disagree. extremists only were able to raise attention to issue if an alternate narrative exists and is acceptable. mlk provided such a narrative and did not allow extremists to force the issue into some sort of battlefield reports.
Yes an alternative narrative must exist, a synthesis that permit the society to pass the contradiction of interests at least in the short term. But the alternative narrative also gain its strength from the existance of extremists movement, or the status quo always dominate.
politics as an actor is what exactly. define that term.
Institutionalize politics : party, representative, etc.
|
On December 26 2014 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies (they are too nuanced and their theories tend to put aside conflictual interests in favor of more subtile and complex analytic frame).
Extremists and political activists did. As to American society, the protectionism that built American industry, the end of American isolationism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ronald Reagan's immigration reform, and the Cold War itself say hello. None of those things were brought about by extremists or grassroots political pressure. There are plenty of other examples. ...You do realize that the New Deal and FDR were viewed as radical extremists and there were some talks of an armed coup to prevent it right?
Other people calling you an extremist doesn't make you so. And the simple fact is there WASN'T an armed coup. That's the whole point of having a Congress that holds hearings and debates, drawing out the issues and chilling emotional reactions.
I think the original statement "Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did." is a bait because it is such a red herring. Obviously, you need politics to pass legislation, not thinking, and it is legislative maneuvering that builds coalitions and whips votes, not expertise on an issue. This was especially true in the turbulent times of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as Congress modernized itself and the country transitioned from a fairly strict North-South divide and more along budding party identities. But extremists in politics have rarely been given the gavel or allowed to thrive for long in Congress. Congress is too jealous to allow anyone to grow too powerful for too long, and emotional outbursts are an easy pull for political judo.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 26 2014 08:05 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 07:59 oneofthem wrote:On December 26 2014 07:51 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 07:26 oneofthem wrote:On December 26 2014 05:47 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 05:40 oneofthem wrote:
well ok, not violent, but extremists do not accomplish much without crossing some large threshold whereby they become the ruling group in the revolutionary minority etc.
there's no chance of that happening in the u.s. atm If you look at it with from an historical standpoint, most of the ideas that we now see as normal and worth fighting for were beforehand defended by extremists or minority of some sort. Democracy in France started with years of massacre and terror. This idea that extremists don't achieve much is just a political trend, in reality it is the opposite : the middleground is always the result of the conflict of extremes. Luther King would never have had the political influence he had without Malcolm X and the black panthers, just like Mandela was labelled as a terrorist. confirmation bias examples. extremists do not normally win because of lack of broad/military support. if they somehow get that, it would obv work. which gets to my use of extremist u took issue with. why did i call the protesters at the cops memorial service extremists? because they are actively setting themselves apart from the mainstream view and sympathy. if you find a successful extremist group they prob enjoyed some degree of mainstream support at some point. in the france example we are dealing with a different kindof politcal society so it doesnt really apply. mlk succeeded because he drew sympathy and concern rather than militant confrontation. as soon as he and blacks lost this the progress stopped. something that should be obviouly just like reparation is seen as anathema. i wonder why. the ability to let the ignorant majority see your pov is important for the most crafty of the extremists, read ur gramsci Your whole point is short sighted. You don't see the fact that an extremist group, while rarely achieving their goals, force the society to take into account some arguments and in the long run the society usually absorb part of their agenda. While the final success usually comes down to the work of institutionnalized movement broadly accepted by the population, the extremists movement usually have a key role in dynamics and public debate. MLK also succeeded because part of the black community had an agressive stand, which both participated in mobilising the most extreme fringe of the community, while also forcing politics to negotiate with the less extreme members to prevent a global radicalisation of the movement. disagree. extremists only were able to raise attention to issue if an alternate narrative exists and is acceptable. mlk provided such a narrative and did not allow extremists to force the issue into some sort of battlefield reports. Yes an alternative narrative must exist, a synthesis that permit the society to pass the contradiction of interests at least in the short term. But the alternative narrative also gain its strength from the existance of extremists movement, or the status quo always dominate. Institutionalize politics : party, representative, etc. but the alternative moderate voice must also control the extremism, otherwise it will be lost
also will argue extremism is not really necessary ingredients to a movement that breaks status quo. the original ferguson or garner protests could have been just as effective without rioting or other extreme elements.
|
On December 26 2014 08:06 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On December 26 2014 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies (they are too nuanced and their theories tend to put aside conflictual interests in favor of more subtile and complex analytic frame).
Extremists and political activists did. As to American society, the protectionism that built American industry, the end of American isolationism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ronald Reagan's immigration reform, and the Cold War itself say hello. None of those things were brought about by extremists or grassroots political pressure. There are plenty of other examples. ...You do realize that the New Deal and FDR were viewed as radical extremists and there were some talks of an armed coup to prevent it right? Other people calling you an extremist doesn't make you so. And the simple fact is there WASN'T an armed coup. That's the whole point of having a Congress that holds hearings and debates, drawing out the issues and chilling emotional reactions. I think the original statement "Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did." is a bait because it is such a red herring. Obviously, you need politics to pass legislation, not thinking, and it is legislative maneuvering that builds coalitions and whips votes, not expertise on an issue. This was especially true in the turbulent times of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as Congress modernized itself and the country transitioned from a fairly strict North-South divide and more along budding party identities. But extremists in politics have rarely been given the gavel or allowed to thrive for long in Congress. Congress is too jealous to allow anyone to grow too powerful for too long, and emotional outbursts are an easy pull for political judo.
Put it back in perspective ; i never said all change are thanks to extremism, I said they played a part in many change. oneofthem's point was that riot were counter productive. It's untrue, extremism can have, and have had a very good influence on political debate. Meanwhile, I've never seen a group of expert changing a society for the best, they oftentime mistake political matters for technical problem (or mix the two), and don't see (or refuse to see) the conflictual interests behind the technical aspects.
Sometime politics also needs caricature to move forward. This idea that only consensual move and rationnal discussion lead to change is perfectly wrong. In fact, consensus and negotiation usually only leads to the status quo and the place we give to expert in our society also explain our inability to change anything (regarding climate for exemple).
Also, not all extremism are violent. Most extremism in history were, at first, completly pacifist : the first big communist manifestation in France were pacifists, against colonisation. Yet they were extreme because they were considered to be far outside the mainstream political field.
|
I think you have it confused. Groups of experts have always been the ones to solve problems while they are almost always technical problems. Political activists and likewise extremists are only suppose to function as a catalist to pressure the politicians to prioritize such causes's.
People protesting in furg and other places around the country saying "black lives matter" have no solutions or any suggestions to improve the system. They're not trying to solve the problem or try to figure out a way to make things better. By rioting and having public dissidence they're pressuring politicians to take notice of what their supporters care about in the hope that they'll either get a group of experts to solve the problem or they'll elect someone who will get that group of experts to solve the problem.
At least thats what I thought it was always suppose to be about. something something no child left behind something something.
|
On December 26 2014 09:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 08:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On December 26 2014 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies (they are too nuanced and their theories tend to put aside conflictual interests in favor of more subtile and complex analytic frame).
Extremists and political activists did. As to American society, the protectionism that built American industry, the end of American isolationism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ronald Reagan's immigration reform, and the Cold War itself say hello. None of those things were brought about by extremists or grassroots political pressure. There are plenty of other examples. ...You do realize that the New Deal and FDR were viewed as radical extremists and there were some talks of an armed coup to prevent it right? Other people calling you an extremist doesn't make you so. And the simple fact is there WASN'T an armed coup. That's the whole point of having a Congress that holds hearings and debates, drawing out the issues and chilling emotional reactions. I think the original statement "Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did." is a bait because it is such a red herring. Obviously, you need politics to pass legislation, not thinking, and it is legislative maneuvering that builds coalitions and whips votes, not expertise on an issue. This was especially true in the turbulent times of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as Congress modernized itself and the country transitioned from a fairly strict North-South divide and more along budding party identities. But extremists in politics have rarely been given the gavel or allowed to thrive for long in Congress. Congress is too jealous to allow anyone to grow too powerful for too long, and emotional outbursts are an easy pull for political judo. Put it back in perspective ; i never said all change are thanks to extremism, I said they played a part in many change. oneofthem's point was that riot were counter productive. It's untrue, extremism can have, and have had a very good influence on political debate. Meanwhile, I've never seen a group of expert changing a society for the best, they oftentime mistake political matters for technical problem (or mix the two), and don't see (or refuse to see) the conflictual interests behind the technical aspects. Sometime politics also needs caricature to move forward. This idea that only consensual move and rationnal discussion lead to change is perfectly wrong. In fact, consensus and negotiation usually only leads to the status quo and the place we give to expert in our society also explain our inability to change anything (regarding climate for exemple). Also, not all extremism are violent. Most extremism in history were, at first, completly pacifist : the first big communist manifestation in France were pacifists, against colonisation. Yet they were extreme because they were considered to be far outside the mainstream political field.
The part I quoted was from your post ("Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did.") That reads like you think nearly all changes are thanks to extremism.
I find that to be very contrary to American history, where Congress serves a moderating purpose for the sake of compromise and getting the votes necessary to pass legislation. I could accept that Congress isn't full of thinkers and experts and they often rely on their opinions only to the cynical extent that it helps garner support and votes, but I think it's very inaccurate to suggest extremists have been the prime movers of change by shifting the debate. US political history is very different from Europe and especially France, and it's notable the US has often used the French government as a counterpoint for why America should avoid the temptations of big and sudden changes.
It's also laughable to say communists were ever pacifist. They WANT a class war. They were against imperialism to the extent that they wanted soldiers to help them kill captains of industry and the rich, not that they wanted no army and no war at all. By definition, extremists want solutions that are unpalatable and unacceptable to the rest of society, which nearly always means killing their enemies in righteous justice.
|
On December 26 2014 12:16 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 09:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 08:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On December 26 2014 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies (they are too nuanced and their theories tend to put aside conflictual interests in favor of more subtile and complex analytic frame).
Extremists and political activists did. As to American society, the protectionism that built American industry, the end of American isolationism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ronald Reagan's immigration reform, and the Cold War itself say hello. None of those things were brought about by extremists or grassroots political pressure. There are plenty of other examples. ...You do realize that the New Deal and FDR were viewed as radical extremists and there were some talks of an armed coup to prevent it right? Other people calling you an extremist doesn't make you so. And the simple fact is there WASN'T an armed coup. That's the whole point of having a Congress that holds hearings and debates, drawing out the issues and chilling emotional reactions. I think the original statement "Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did." is a bait because it is such a red herring. Obviously, you need politics to pass legislation, not thinking, and it is legislative maneuvering that builds coalitions and whips votes, not expertise on an issue. This was especially true in the turbulent times of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as Congress modernized itself and the country transitioned from a fairly strict North-South divide and more along budding party identities. But extremists in politics have rarely been given the gavel or allowed to thrive for long in Congress. Congress is too jealous to allow anyone to grow too powerful for too long, and emotional outbursts are an easy pull for political judo. Put it back in perspective ; i never said all change are thanks to extremism, I said they played a part in many change. oneofthem's point was that riot were counter productive. It's untrue, extremism can have, and have had a very good influence on political debate. Meanwhile, I've never seen a group of expert changing a society for the best, they oftentime mistake political matters for technical problem (or mix the two), and don't see (or refuse to see) the conflictual interests behind the technical aspects. Sometime politics also needs caricature to move forward. This idea that only consensual move and rationnal discussion lead to change is perfectly wrong. In fact, consensus and negotiation usually only leads to the status quo and the place we give to expert in our society also explain our inability to change anything (regarding climate for exemple). Also, not all extremism are violent. Most extremism in history were, at first, completly pacifist : the first big communist manifestation in France were pacifists, against colonisation. Yet they were extreme because they were considered to be far outside the mainstream political field. The part I quoted was from your post ("Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did.") That reads like you think nearly all changes are thanks to extremism. I find that to be very contrary to American history, where Congress serves a moderating purpose for the sake of compromise and getting the votes necessary to pass legislation. I could accept that Congress isn't full of thinkers and experts and they often rely on their opinions only to the cynical extent that it helps garner support and votes, but I think it's very inaccurate to suggest extremists have been the prime movers of change by shifting the debate. US political history is very different from Europe and especially France, and it's notable the US has often used the French government as a counterpoint for why America should avoid the temptations of big and sudden changes. It's also laughable to say communists were ever pacifist. They WANT a class war. They were against imperialism to the extent that they wanted soldiers to help them kill captains of industry and the rich, not that they wanted no army and no war at all. By definition, extremists want solutions that are unpalatable and unacceptable to the rest of society, which nearly always means killing their enemies in righteous justice.
Communists want a class war ? Ho really ?
Communists historically were pacifists, I'm sorry if your all USA history book don't teach you that, but the soviet are not the debut of the communist ideology (more like the tomb). It's Lenin that theorized communism as an armed revolution, in the specific context of Russia.
Class struggle is not a war that communist "wish" to fight for with weapon and all, it's a concept that describe the reality of exploitation in a society that permit accumulation of capital : the interests of the worker class are at war with the interests of the capitalists, the end goal being the end of this class struggle through a reform of property right.
Also you misread the part you quoted, I never said ONLY extremists play a role.
On December 26 2014 12:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think you have it confused. Groups of experts have always been the ones to solve problems while they are almost always technical problems. Political activists and likewise extremists are only suppose to function as a catalist to pressure the politicians to prioritize such causes's.
Expert have no clue on what is political, even their subject are defined by people saying "black lives matter". Just saying groups of experts have been solving problems doesn't quite cut it, give me exemples of big political change where an expert played a key role in tayloring and pushing an idea forward. I'm all ears.
Experts are relevant when the problem is technical, in politics most big problems are not merely technical but conflictuals, it's cutting a problem in favor of someone against someone else. The technical solution only comes after the society agreed on resolving the political matter.
|
On December 26 2014 23:55 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 12:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 09:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 08:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On December 26 2014 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies (they are too nuanced and their theories tend to put aside conflictual interests in favor of more subtile and complex analytic frame).
Extremists and political activists did. As to American society, the protectionism that built American industry, the end of American isolationism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ronald Reagan's immigration reform, and the Cold War itself say hello. None of those things were brought about by extremists or grassroots political pressure. There are plenty of other examples. ...You do realize that the New Deal and FDR were viewed as radical extremists and there were some talks of an armed coup to prevent it right? Other people calling you an extremist doesn't make you so. And the simple fact is there WASN'T an armed coup. That's the whole point of having a Congress that holds hearings and debates, drawing out the issues and chilling emotional reactions. I think the original statement "Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did." is a bait because it is such a red herring. Obviously, you need politics to pass legislation, not thinking, and it is legislative maneuvering that builds coalitions and whips votes, not expertise on an issue. This was especially true in the turbulent times of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as Congress modernized itself and the country transitioned from a fairly strict North-South divide and more along budding party identities. But extremists in politics have rarely been given the gavel or allowed to thrive for long in Congress. Congress is too jealous to allow anyone to grow too powerful for too long, and emotional outbursts are an easy pull for political judo. Put it back in perspective ; i never said all change are thanks to extremism, I said they played a part in many change. oneofthem's point was that riot were counter productive. It's untrue, extremism can have, and have had a very good influence on political debate. Meanwhile, I've never seen a group of expert changing a society for the best, they oftentime mistake political matters for technical problem (or mix the two), and don't see (or refuse to see) the conflictual interests behind the technical aspects. Sometime politics also needs caricature to move forward. This idea that only consensual move and rationnal discussion lead to change is perfectly wrong. In fact, consensus and negotiation usually only leads to the status quo and the place we give to expert in our society also explain our inability to change anything (regarding climate for exemple). Also, not all extremism are violent. Most extremism in history were, at first, completly pacifist : the first big communist manifestation in France were pacifists, against colonisation. Yet they were extreme because they were considered to be far outside the mainstream political field. The part I quoted was from your post ("Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did.") That reads like you think nearly all changes are thanks to extremism. I find that to be very contrary to American history, where Congress serves a moderating purpose for the sake of compromise and getting the votes necessary to pass legislation. I could accept that Congress isn't full of thinkers and experts and they often rely on their opinions only to the cynical extent that it helps garner support and votes, but I think it's very inaccurate to suggest extremists have been the prime movers of change by shifting the debate. US political history is very different from Europe and especially France, and it's notable the US has often used the French government as a counterpoint for why America should avoid the temptations of big and sudden changes. It's also laughable to say communists were ever pacifist. They WANT a class war. They were against imperialism to the extent that they wanted soldiers to help them kill captains of industry and the rich, not that they wanted no army and no war at all. By definition, extremists want solutions that are unpalatable and unacceptable to the rest of society, which nearly always means killing their enemies in righteous justice. Communists want a class war ? Ho really ? Communists historically were pacifists, I'm sorry if your all USA history book don't teach you that, but the soviet are not the debut of the communist ideology (more like the tomb). It's Lenin that theorized communism as an armed revolution, in the specific context of Russia. Class struggle is not a war that communist "wish" to fight for with weapon and all, it's a concept that describe the reality of exploitation in a society that permit accumulation of capital : the interests of the worker class are at war with the interests of the capitalists, the end goal being the end of this class struggle through a reform of property right.
I don't think you can spread solace by allowing that Communists acknowledge the reality of exploitation and war, while not wanting a class war. I can only think of how much breath they wasted talking of inevitability, when of course they never meant class war was desirable to their ends. I am much persuaded that the class war and all the misery that resulted from Russia's experimentation with it (sophistry, of course, says they were misguided fools--nobody's ever tried communism to the purity and extent of intellectual's satisfaction) is responsible for much of the current misery of the poor, the real pawns of today's class warriors. Their message echoes,
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
|
On December 27 2014 02:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 23:55 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 12:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 09:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 08:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On December 26 2014 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies (they are too nuanced and their theories tend to put aside conflictual interests in favor of more subtile and complex analytic frame).
Extremists and political activists did. As to American society, the protectionism that built American industry, the end of American isolationism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ronald Reagan's immigration reform, and the Cold War itself say hello. None of those things were brought about by extremists or grassroots political pressure. There are plenty of other examples. ...You do realize that the New Deal and FDR were viewed as radical extremists and there were some talks of an armed coup to prevent it right? Other people calling you an extremist doesn't make you so. And the simple fact is there WASN'T an armed coup. That's the whole point of having a Congress that holds hearings and debates, drawing out the issues and chilling emotional reactions. I think the original statement "Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did." is a bait because it is such a red herring. Obviously, you need politics to pass legislation, not thinking, and it is legislative maneuvering that builds coalitions and whips votes, not expertise on an issue. This was especially true in the turbulent times of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as Congress modernized itself and the country transitioned from a fairly strict North-South divide and more along budding party identities. But extremists in politics have rarely been given the gavel or allowed to thrive for long in Congress. Congress is too jealous to allow anyone to grow too powerful for too long, and emotional outbursts are an easy pull for political judo. Put it back in perspective ; i never said all change are thanks to extremism, I said they played a part in many change. oneofthem's point was that riot were counter productive. It's untrue, extremism can have, and have had a very good influence on political debate. Meanwhile, I've never seen a group of expert changing a society for the best, they oftentime mistake political matters for technical problem (or mix the two), and don't see (or refuse to see) the conflictual interests behind the technical aspects. Sometime politics also needs caricature to move forward. This idea that only consensual move and rationnal discussion lead to change is perfectly wrong. In fact, consensus and negotiation usually only leads to the status quo and the place we give to expert in our society also explain our inability to change anything (regarding climate for exemple). Also, not all extremism are violent. Most extremism in history were, at first, completly pacifist : the first big communist manifestation in France were pacifists, against colonisation. Yet they were extreme because they were considered to be far outside the mainstream political field. The part I quoted was from your post ("Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did.") That reads like you think nearly all changes are thanks to extremism. I find that to be very contrary to American history, where Congress serves a moderating purpose for the sake of compromise and getting the votes necessary to pass legislation. I could accept that Congress isn't full of thinkers and experts and they often rely on their opinions only to the cynical extent that it helps garner support and votes, but I think it's very inaccurate to suggest extremists have been the prime movers of change by shifting the debate. US political history is very different from Europe and especially France, and it's notable the US has often used the French government as a counterpoint for why America should avoid the temptations of big and sudden changes. It's also laughable to say communists were ever pacifist. They WANT a class war. They were against imperialism to the extent that they wanted soldiers to help them kill captains of industry and the rich, not that they wanted no army and no war at all. By definition, extremists want solutions that are unpalatable and unacceptable to the rest of society, which nearly always means killing their enemies in righteous justice. Communists want a class war ? Ho really ? Communists historically were pacifists, I'm sorry if your all USA history book don't teach you that, but the soviet are not the debut of the communist ideology (more like the tomb). It's Lenin that theorized communism as an armed revolution, in the specific context of Russia. Class struggle is not a war that communist "wish" to fight for with weapon and all, it's a concept that describe the reality of exploitation in a society that permit accumulation of capital : the interests of the worker class are at war with the interests of the capitalists, the end goal being the end of this class struggle through a reform of property right. I don't think you can spread solace by allowing that Communists acknowledge the reality of exploitation and war, while not wanting a class war. I can only think of how much breath they wasted talking of inevitability, when of course they never meant class war was desirable to their ends. I am much persuaded that the class war and all the misery that resulted from Russia's experimentation with it (sophistry, of course, says they were misguided fools--nobody's ever tried communism to the purity and extent of intellectual's satisfaction) is responsible for much of the current misery of the poor, the real pawns of today's class warriors. Their message echoes, Show nested quote +The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
The class war is raging harder than ever, it's not up to the communists whether it continues or not. In the soviet block, at least, everyone but the convicts were comrades.
|
On December 27 2014 02:34 IgnE wrote:
The class war is raging harder than ever, it's not up to the communists whether it continues or not. In the soviet block, at least, everyone but the convicts were comrades.
"unified in poverty" doesn't sound like a very great strategy to combat social problems
|
On December 27 2014 02:34 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 02:14 Danglars wrote:On December 26 2014 23:55 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 12:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 09:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 08:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On December 26 2014 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies (they are too nuanced and their theories tend to put aside conflictual interests in favor of more subtile and complex analytic frame).
Extremists and political activists did. As to American society, the protectionism that built American industry, the end of American isolationism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ronald Reagan's immigration reform, and the Cold War itself say hello. None of those things were brought about by extremists or grassroots political pressure. There are plenty of other examples. ...You do realize that the New Deal and FDR were viewed as radical extremists and there were some talks of an armed coup to prevent it right? Other people calling you an extremist doesn't make you so. And the simple fact is there WASN'T an armed coup. That's the whole point of having a Congress that holds hearings and debates, drawing out the issues and chilling emotional reactions. I think the original statement "Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did." is a bait because it is such a red herring. Obviously, you need politics to pass legislation, not thinking, and it is legislative maneuvering that builds coalitions and whips votes, not expertise on an issue. This was especially true in the turbulent times of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as Congress modernized itself and the country transitioned from a fairly strict North-South divide and more along budding party identities. But extremists in politics have rarely been given the gavel or allowed to thrive for long in Congress. Congress is too jealous to allow anyone to grow too powerful for too long, and emotional outbursts are an easy pull for political judo. Put it back in perspective ; i never said all change are thanks to extremism, I said they played a part in many change. oneofthem's point was that riot were counter productive. It's untrue, extremism can have, and have had a very good influence on political debate. Meanwhile, I've never seen a group of expert changing a society for the best, they oftentime mistake political matters for technical problem (or mix the two), and don't see (or refuse to see) the conflictual interests behind the technical aspects. Sometime politics also needs caricature to move forward. This idea that only consensual move and rationnal discussion lead to change is perfectly wrong. In fact, consensus and negotiation usually only leads to the status quo and the place we give to expert in our society also explain our inability to change anything (regarding climate for exemple). Also, not all extremism are violent. Most extremism in history were, at first, completly pacifist : the first big communist manifestation in France were pacifists, against colonisation. Yet they were extreme because they were considered to be far outside the mainstream political field. The part I quoted was from your post ("Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did.") That reads like you think nearly all changes are thanks to extremism. I find that to be very contrary to American history, where Congress serves a moderating purpose for the sake of compromise and getting the votes necessary to pass legislation. I could accept that Congress isn't full of thinkers and experts and they often rely on their opinions only to the cynical extent that it helps garner support and votes, but I think it's very inaccurate to suggest extremists have been the prime movers of change by shifting the debate. US political history is very different from Europe and especially France, and it's notable the US has often used the French government as a counterpoint for why America should avoid the temptations of big and sudden changes. It's also laughable to say communists were ever pacifist. They WANT a class war. They were against imperialism to the extent that they wanted soldiers to help them kill captains of industry and the rich, not that they wanted no army and no war at all. By definition, extremists want solutions that are unpalatable and unacceptable to the rest of society, which nearly always means killing their enemies in righteous justice. Communists want a class war ? Ho really ? Communists historically were pacifists, I'm sorry if your all USA history book don't teach you that, but the soviet are not the debut of the communist ideology (more like the tomb). It's Lenin that theorized communism as an armed revolution, in the specific context of Russia. Class struggle is not a war that communist "wish" to fight for with weapon and all, it's a concept that describe the reality of exploitation in a society that permit accumulation of capital : the interests of the worker class are at war with the interests of the capitalists, the end goal being the end of this class struggle through a reform of property right. I don't think you can spread solace by allowing that Communists acknowledge the reality of exploitation and war, while not wanting a class war. I can only think of how much breath they wasted talking of inevitability, when of course they never meant class war was desirable to their ends. I am much persuaded that the class war and all the misery that resulted from Russia's experimentation with it (sophistry, of course, says they were misguided fools--nobody's ever tried communism to the purity and extent of intellectual's satisfaction) is responsible for much of the current misery of the poor, the real pawns of today's class warriors. Their message echoes, The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. The class war is raging harder than ever, it's not up to the communists whether it continues or not. In the soviet block, at least, everyone but the convicts were comrades.
yes to your first sentence. but your second one is just messed up. there was hardly anything - if anything at all - "better" under communism...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On December 27 2014 05:06 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 02:34 IgnE wrote:On December 27 2014 02:14 Danglars wrote:On December 26 2014 23:55 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 12:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 09:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 08:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On December 26 2014 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies (they are too nuanced and their theories tend to put aside conflictual interests in favor of more subtile and complex analytic frame).
Extremists and political activists did. As to American society, the protectionism that built American industry, the end of American isolationism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ronald Reagan's immigration reform, and the Cold War itself say hello. None of those things were brought about by extremists or grassroots political pressure. There are plenty of other examples. ...You do realize that the New Deal and FDR were viewed as radical extremists and there were some talks of an armed coup to prevent it right? Other people calling you an extremist doesn't make you so. And the simple fact is there WASN'T an armed coup. That's the whole point of having a Congress that holds hearings and debates, drawing out the issues and chilling emotional reactions. I think the original statement "Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did." is a bait because it is such a red herring. Obviously, you need politics to pass legislation, not thinking, and it is legislative maneuvering that builds coalitions and whips votes, not expertise on an issue. This was especially true in the turbulent times of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as Congress modernized itself and the country transitioned from a fairly strict North-South divide and more along budding party identities. But extremists in politics have rarely been given the gavel or allowed to thrive for long in Congress. Congress is too jealous to allow anyone to grow too powerful for too long, and emotional outbursts are an easy pull for political judo. Put it back in perspective ; i never said all change are thanks to extremism, I said they played a part in many change. oneofthem's point was that riot were counter productive. It's untrue, extremism can have, and have had a very good influence on political debate. Meanwhile, I've never seen a group of expert changing a society for the best, they oftentime mistake political matters for technical problem (or mix the two), and don't see (or refuse to see) the conflictual interests behind the technical aspects. Sometime politics also needs caricature to move forward. This idea that only consensual move and rationnal discussion lead to change is perfectly wrong. In fact, consensus and negotiation usually only leads to the status quo and the place we give to expert in our society also explain our inability to change anything (regarding climate for exemple). Also, not all extremism are violent. Most extremism in history were, at first, completly pacifist : the first big communist manifestation in France were pacifists, against colonisation. Yet they were extreme because they were considered to be far outside the mainstream political field. The part I quoted was from your post ("Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did.") That reads like you think nearly all changes are thanks to extremism. I find that to be very contrary to American history, where Congress serves a moderating purpose for the sake of compromise and getting the votes necessary to pass legislation. I could accept that Congress isn't full of thinkers and experts and they often rely on their opinions only to the cynical extent that it helps garner support and votes, but I think it's very inaccurate to suggest extremists have been the prime movers of change by shifting the debate. US political history is very different from Europe and especially France, and it's notable the US has often used the French government as a counterpoint for why America should avoid the temptations of big and sudden changes. It's also laughable to say communists were ever pacifist. They WANT a class war. They were against imperialism to the extent that they wanted soldiers to help them kill captains of industry and the rich, not that they wanted no army and no war at all. By definition, extremists want solutions that are unpalatable and unacceptable to the rest of society, which nearly always means killing their enemies in righteous justice. Communists want a class war ? Ho really ? Communists historically were pacifists, I'm sorry if your all USA history book don't teach you that, but the soviet are not the debut of the communist ideology (more like the tomb). It's Lenin that theorized communism as an armed revolution, in the specific context of Russia. Class struggle is not a war that communist "wish" to fight for with weapon and all, it's a concept that describe the reality of exploitation in a society that permit accumulation of capital : the interests of the worker class are at war with the interests of the capitalists, the end goal being the end of this class struggle through a reform of property right. I don't think you can spread solace by allowing that Communists acknowledge the reality of exploitation and war, while not wanting a class war. I can only think of how much breath they wasted talking of inevitability, when of course they never meant class war was desirable to their ends. I am much persuaded that the class war and all the misery that resulted from Russia's experimentation with it (sophistry, of course, says they were misguided fools--nobody's ever tried communism to the purity and extent of intellectual's satisfaction) is responsible for much of the current misery of the poor, the real pawns of today's class warriors. Their message echoes, The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. The class war is raging harder than ever, it's not up to the communists whether it continues or not. In the soviet block, at least, everyone but the convicts were comrades. yes to your first sentence. but your second one is just messed up. there was hardly anything - if anything at all - "better" under communism...
There was certainly less envy and coveting under communism. Hard to know for sure, but outside of politically related stuff like bribery, corruption, and dissonance it seems the consensus among western scholars is that the USSR had a lower crime rate also. As bad as Communism and the USSR might have been, it wasn't all bad.
People putting class warfare on poor people is the height of stupidity IMO. Millions of people, women and children included, die from a lack of basic necessities like food and water every year while others waste more than those people ever see. It's not because they don't work harder than the All-American 'bootstrappers' that think they deserve all they have, but because by the time everyone else is finished extracting their wealth, there just isn't enough left to feed and shelter the people who produced the goods that earned it. The "class war" has been raging for long before any modern political forces embraced it. Although one side has been getting it's ass kicked pretty much the whole time.
|
|
|
On December 27 2014 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 05:06 Doublemint wrote:On December 27 2014 02:34 IgnE wrote:On December 27 2014 02:14 Danglars wrote:On December 26 2014 23:55 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 12:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 09:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 08:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On December 26 2014 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
As to American society, the protectionism that built American industry, the end of American isolationism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ronald Reagan's immigration reform, and the Cold War itself say hello. None of those things were brought about by extremists or grassroots political pressure. There are plenty of other examples.
...You do realize that the New Deal and FDR were viewed as radical extremists and there were some talks of an armed coup to prevent it right? Other people calling you an extremist doesn't make you so. And the simple fact is there WASN'T an armed coup. That's the whole point of having a Congress that holds hearings and debates, drawing out the issues and chilling emotional reactions. I think the original statement "Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did." is a bait because it is such a red herring. Obviously, you need politics to pass legislation, not thinking, and it is legislative maneuvering that builds coalitions and whips votes, not expertise on an issue. This was especially true in the turbulent times of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as Congress modernized itself and the country transitioned from a fairly strict North-South divide and more along budding party identities. But extremists in politics have rarely been given the gavel or allowed to thrive for long in Congress. Congress is too jealous to allow anyone to grow too powerful for too long, and emotional outbursts are an easy pull for political judo. Put it back in perspective ; i never said all change are thanks to extremism, I said they played a part in many change. oneofthem's point was that riot were counter productive. It's untrue, extremism can have, and have had a very good influence on political debate. Meanwhile, I've never seen a group of expert changing a society for the best, they oftentime mistake political matters for technical problem (or mix the two), and don't see (or refuse to see) the conflictual interests behind the technical aspects. Sometime politics also needs caricature to move forward. This idea that only consensual move and rationnal discussion lead to change is perfectly wrong. In fact, consensus and negotiation usually only leads to the status quo and the place we give to expert in our society also explain our inability to change anything (regarding climate for exemple). Also, not all extremism are violent. Most extremism in history were, at first, completly pacifist : the first big communist manifestation in France were pacifists, against colonisation. Yet they were extreme because they were considered to be far outside the mainstream political field. The part I quoted was from your post ("Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did.") That reads like you think nearly all changes are thanks to extremism. I find that to be very contrary to American history, where Congress serves a moderating purpose for the sake of compromise and getting the votes necessary to pass legislation. I could accept that Congress isn't full of thinkers and experts and they often rely on their opinions only to the cynical extent that it helps garner support and votes, but I think it's very inaccurate to suggest extremists have been the prime movers of change by shifting the debate. US political history is very different from Europe and especially France, and it's notable the US has often used the French government as a counterpoint for why America should avoid the temptations of big and sudden changes. It's also laughable to say communists were ever pacifist. They WANT a class war. They were against imperialism to the extent that they wanted soldiers to help them kill captains of industry and the rich, not that they wanted no army and no war at all. By definition, extremists want solutions that are unpalatable and unacceptable to the rest of society, which nearly always means killing their enemies in righteous justice. Communists want a class war ? Ho really ? Communists historically were pacifists, I'm sorry if your all USA history book don't teach you that, but the soviet are not the debut of the communist ideology (more like the tomb). It's Lenin that theorized communism as an armed revolution, in the specific context of Russia. Class struggle is not a war that communist "wish" to fight for with weapon and all, it's a concept that describe the reality of exploitation in a society that permit accumulation of capital : the interests of the worker class are at war with the interests of the capitalists, the end goal being the end of this class struggle through a reform of property right. I don't think you can spread solace by allowing that Communists acknowledge the reality of exploitation and war, while not wanting a class war. I can only think of how much breath they wasted talking of inevitability, when of course they never meant class war was desirable to their ends. I am much persuaded that the class war and all the misery that resulted from Russia's experimentation with it (sophistry, of course, says they were misguided fools--nobody's ever tried communism to the purity and extent of intellectual's satisfaction) is responsible for much of the current misery of the poor, the real pawns of today's class warriors. Their message echoes, The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. The class war is raging harder than ever, it's not up to the communists whether it continues or not. In the soviet block, at least, everyone but the convicts were comrades. yes to your first sentence. but your second one is just messed up. there was hardly anything - if anything at all - "better" under communism... There was certainly less envy and coveting under communism. Hard to know for sure, but outside of politically related stuff like bribery, corruption, and dissonance it seems the consensus among western scholars is that the USSR had a lower crime rate also. As bad as Communism and the USSR might have been, it wasn't all bad. People putting class warfare on poor people is the height of stupidity IMO. Millions of people, women and children included, die from a lack of basic necessities like food and water every year while others waste more than those people ever see. It's not because they don't work harder than the All-American 'bootstrappers' that think they deserve all they have, but because by the time everyone else is finished extracting their wealth, there just isn't enough left to feed and shelter the people who produced the goods that earned it. The "class war" has been raging for long before any modern political forces embraced it. Although one side has been getting it's ass kicked pretty much the whole time.
well... knowing or at least not being naive about what is being done to people in a totalitarian society and under such a regime should help with things like crime rate.
I don't have to embrace anything from the USSR to say that there is a class war going on. what marx - rightfully - described and had a vague idea about is worlds apart from what happened in the USSR.
|
Canada11429 Posts
On December 27 2014 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 05:06 Doublemint wrote:On December 27 2014 02:34 IgnE wrote:On December 27 2014 02:14 Danglars wrote:On December 26 2014 23:55 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 12:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 09:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 26 2014 08:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 26 2014 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On December 26 2014 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
As to American society, the protectionism that built American industry, the end of American isolationism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ronald Reagan's immigration reform, and the Cold War itself say hello. None of those things were brought about by extremists or grassroots political pressure. There are plenty of other examples.
...You do realize that the New Deal and FDR were viewed as radical extremists and there were some talks of an armed coup to prevent it right? Other people calling you an extremist doesn't make you so. And the simple fact is there WASN'T an armed coup. That's the whole point of having a Congress that holds hearings and debates, drawing out the issues and chilling emotional reactions. I think the original statement "Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did." is a bait because it is such a red herring. Obviously, you need politics to pass legislation, not thinking, and it is legislative maneuvering that builds coalitions and whips votes, not expertise on an issue. This was especially true in the turbulent times of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as Congress modernized itself and the country transitioned from a fairly strict North-South divide and more along budding party identities. But extremists in politics have rarely been given the gavel or allowed to thrive for long in Congress. Congress is too jealous to allow anyone to grow too powerful for too long, and emotional outbursts are an easy pull for political judo. Put it back in perspective ; i never said all change are thanks to extremism, I said they played a part in many change. oneofthem's point was that riot were counter productive. It's untrue, extremism can have, and have had a very good influence on political debate. Meanwhile, I've never seen a group of expert changing a society for the best, they oftentime mistake political matters for technical problem (or mix the two), and don't see (or refuse to see) the conflictual interests behind the technical aspects. Sometime politics also needs caricature to move forward. This idea that only consensual move and rationnal discussion lead to change is perfectly wrong. In fact, consensus and negotiation usually only leads to the status quo and the place we give to expert in our society also explain our inability to change anything (regarding climate for exemple). Also, not all extremism are violent. Most extremism in history were, at first, completly pacifist : the first big communist manifestation in France were pacifists, against colonisation. Yet they were extreme because they were considered to be far outside the mainstream political field. The part I quoted was from your post ("Experts and thinkers barely ever had any role in big political change in our societies. Extremists and political activists did.") That reads like you think nearly all changes are thanks to extremism. I find that to be very contrary to American history, where Congress serves a moderating purpose for the sake of compromise and getting the votes necessary to pass legislation. I could accept that Congress isn't full of thinkers and experts and they often rely on their opinions only to the cynical extent that it helps garner support and votes, but I think it's very inaccurate to suggest extremists have been the prime movers of change by shifting the debate. US political history is very different from Europe and especially France, and it's notable the US has often used the French government as a counterpoint for why America should avoid the temptations of big and sudden changes. It's also laughable to say communists were ever pacifist. They WANT a class war. They were against imperialism to the extent that they wanted soldiers to help them kill captains of industry and the rich, not that they wanted no army and no war at all. By definition, extremists want solutions that are unpalatable and unacceptable to the rest of society, which nearly always means killing their enemies in righteous justice. Communists want a class war ? Ho really ? Communists historically were pacifists, I'm sorry if your all USA history book don't teach you that, but the soviet are not the debut of the communist ideology (more like the tomb). It's Lenin that theorized communism as an armed revolution, in the specific context of Russia. Class struggle is not a war that communist "wish" to fight for with weapon and all, it's a concept that describe the reality of exploitation in a society that permit accumulation of capital : the interests of the worker class are at war with the interests of the capitalists, the end goal being the end of this class struggle through a reform of property right. I don't think you can spread solace by allowing that Communists acknowledge the reality of exploitation and war, while not wanting a class war. I can only think of how much breath they wasted talking of inevitability, when of course they never meant class war was desirable to their ends. I am much persuaded that the class war and all the misery that resulted from Russia's experimentation with it (sophistry, of course, says they were misguided fools--nobody's ever tried communism to the purity and extent of intellectual's satisfaction) is responsible for much of the current misery of the poor, the real pawns of today's class warriors. Their message echoes, The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. The class war is raging harder than ever, it's not up to the communists whether it continues or not. In the soviet block, at least, everyone but the convicts were comrades. yes to your first sentence. but your second one is just messed up. there was hardly anything - if anything at all - "better" under communism... There was certainly less envy and coveting under communism. Hard to know for sure, but outside of politically related stuff like bribery, corruption, and dissonance it seems the consensus among western scholars is that the USSR had a lower crime rate also. As bad as Communism and the USSR might have been, it wasn't all bad.
Maybe it wasn't all bad, but from the perspective of my ancestors, it was really quite bad. Collectivization tended to hamstring a good portion of the farmers, demote the managers that actually knew what they were doing and promote incompetent peasants into positions of power. And much of it began without government intervention- the word was out and collectivization began with the people. Not to mention the emptying of prisons that resulted in groups of bandits targetting Mennonite villages. The fortunate ones got out in the 20's (my great-grandparents). Of those left behind, the next wave thought it was worth following the retreating German army in the 40's rather than stay behind. Farther east, entire villages up and left in the middle of the night (so they wouldn't be stopped) and fled for China and later the Americas- North or South. All in all, I think it was quite bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
