On Open Political Discussion

thewonder

So, I used to be a rather fanatical, aside from "mad", libertarian socialist, specifically an Anarcho-Pacifist with an interest in Communization, which is to say that I effectively advanced the immediate establishment of what Murray Bookchin called the "Commune of communes" somehow nonviolently, I wasn't too as to how either, but, though I am still a Pacifist and of the libertarian Left, believe for myself to have become somewhat more open-minded, as well as less mad.

The reason for this was that I took a course on Communism, which was kind of revelatory for me, as, up until then, what I hadn't realized was that almost everything that I knew about Vladimir Lenin came straight from the International Socialist Organization. For the section of the course on the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we read Leszek Kołakowski's "My Correct Views on Everything", a rather acerbic onslaught on E.P. Thompson, who realistically had only offered to buy the guy a drink, but is also extraordinarily well written and chalk full of rather astute wit and insight. It is, in point of fact, so well written that I had decided to abandon my rather intransigent interpretation of the entire political foray, being that there exists the libertarian Left, their allies, and everyone else, and to seek out genuine political discourse. I was surprised to find that there was someone on the Right who had something to say that I wanted to hear and glad to. Perhaps, someday, political discourse will become more like what philosophical discourse, at least, purports itself to be, which is to seek out a greater understanding of the world. Now may or may not be the time to make a plea for a more open dialogue, but, as that is what a genuine politic would be, I am not sure as to whether or not there even is such a time, other than at any given moment.

NOS4A2

↪thewonder

Nicely said. Censoring political opponents and always seeking political consensus is a process of diminishing returns. Above all, one should be a pluralist when it comes to politics because if there was no disagreement there would be no politics at all. Polarization clarifies things.

thewonder

Above all, one should be a pluralist when it comes to politics because if there was no disagreement there would be no politics at all. Polarization clarifies things. — NOS4A2

I've just posted this thread and another about the text by Karl Marx which includes the statement, "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.", and, so, am not really one to make such a critique, but I think that there could be an inherent contradiction to your line of reasoning there.

NOS4A2

↪thewonder

I've just posted this thread and another about the text by Karl Marx which includes the statement, "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.", and, so, am not really one to make such a critique, but I think that there could be an inherent contradiction to your line of reasoning there.

What is the contradiction? My point is that politics requires some sort of dialectic in order to be considered politics. This is debatable depending on your definition of politics, but It seems to me that political unity or consensus is a contradiction in terms, and is not politics at all.

thewonder

↪NOS4A2

Well, I'm all for pluralism, but that "polarization clarifies things" runs directly contrary to the general sentiment of this post, which you have claimed to be in agreement with.

NOS4A2

↪thewonder

Well, I'm all for pluralism, but that "polarization clarifies things" runs directly contrary to the general sentiment of this post, which you have claimed to be in agreement with.

I agree with the notion of "open dialogue". I disagree that "open dialogue" should entail consensus and unity. That, to me, always leads to "closed dialogue".

thewonder

↪NOS4A2

The consensus-based decision-making model is not quite what I'm trying to get at here, but, I will say that, within a genuine participatory democracy, it may not fail as it often has in experiments, though am not terribly inclined to advocate in favor of it or against.

In no ways have I made some sort of Orwellian appeal to an ostensive collective will à la We the Living. I think that you have made assumptions about my general ethos because of my stated political philosophy, one, I might add, is relatively free of some of the more oppressive aspects of Marxism-Leninism, as it is counterposed to that as well, where your critiques, if thought a bit more well out, may apply, I suppose.

I'm talking about engaging in political debate as if to discover what potential there is for a better world via open dialogue and have used my own experience to highlight the dangers of becoming entrenched within a specific political ideology to the point of becoming fanatical, which your ostensive polarized clarity does run directly contrary to. It's just about willing to take others' ideas into consideration so as to come to a better understanding of the world.

Jack Cummins

↪thewonder

The difficulty in an open political discussion is that politics is so loaded in its history, biases and emotive stances. It can soon become an arena in which people attack one another.

You say that it's about being 'willing to take others' ideas into consideration so as to come to a better understanding of the world? I would say that is an area which is not limited to politics alone, but about taking on into account ideas from many disciplines.

NOS4A2

↪thewonder

I’m not claiming your for or against this or that model, nor am I making any assumptions about your ethos. My only claim is that if there was no disagreement and polarization there would be no politics. As you intimated, that way leads necessarily to fanaticism, as we have seen in societies that strictly forbid this or that opposing ideology.

Pfhorrest

my rather intransigent interpretation of the entire political foray, being that there exists the libertarian Left, their allies, and everyone else — thewonder

I’m surprised that that was your initial view from which you have since expanded, as the common political frame since the 20th centuries seems to be one of a statist left vs a libertarian right, and only those who study history or think far outside that box seem to realize that a libertarian left is even possible.

Kenosha Kid

↪thewonder

An open discussion, but no so open its brain falls out. Remembering the lessons of the past is also useful, so that we don't make the same mistakes. Open discussion between conservative and progressive theories is fine, and we generally have that and it's synthesis. But having to reargue against the same bad ideology as if it's brand new is not so useful. For instance, taking recent events as an example, having to reargue for democracy against a fascist dictatorship seems a bit crazy, but these are crazy times.

Judaka

↪thewonder

Certain ideologies are blamed with horrible atrocities and disasters of epic proportions. We are hypersensitive to the problems that our societies face and the speed at which things are moving creates a sense of urgency.

Across the range of political matters, there are many strong emotions at play, compromise seems to not be an option. People will agree in principle that there should be open political discussion but on what topic? Abortion, gun control, economic policy, foreign policy, LGBT issues, free speech issues, police brutality, education debt, the war on drugs, treatment of criminals and the list goes on. Many politically motivated people see their views on these issues as utterly non-negotiable. In practice, there is very little that people are willing to be open about when it comes to the hot political issues.

To me, the solution is to realise that whether we talk with openness or hostility towards a random person we meet is not going to have any bearing on the future of politics. If one feels "the left/right is the biggest threat to Western civilization!!" okay but let's not treat anyone who self-identifies with those politics with all of that frustration and anger, I think that's where the problems start. It's not going to solve anything anyway and if there's someone with whom you do not wish to discuss politics, then just don't. It's not always easy to put into practice but I believe that would solve a lot of the problems going on currently.

thewonder

↪NOS4A2

Disagreement and polarization are not the same thing. To become polarized means to become entrenched within a political position. It has a veritable raison d'être in some cases, but is often just inherently problematic.

↪Jack Cummins

Just a generally agreeable statement.

↪Pfhorrest

I've never really seen this as the distinction, as I tend to see the general plight as being because of subjugation, and, therefore, situated within an anti-authoritarian, a school of thought that has a history within the Left, and authoritarian dispute. My assumption was more or less just motivated by the rather fanatical precept that only the libertarian Left was an Ethical choice. To apply the metaphor within the framework of Anarchism, I see that it was sort of like my postulate that anyone decent would've have to have chosen Peter Kropotkin from the original Anarchists, if you will. It seems to make an odd kind of sense, but ultimately doesn't add up to very much and is more misleading than otherwise.

↪Kenosha Kid

By that same token, though, isn't trying Donald Trump for treason kind of excessive? He's been made enough of an example of already.

Granted, by no means do I think that I should have to entertain tired old arguments, take the teaching of the more fanatical interpretations of Creationism in schools as an example, for instance; I've just found that reading something outside of my general worldview was rather refreshing and wanted to put it out there that open dialogue, despite what I, too, can see in a certain degree of rallying, is just what Politics should actually be like.

FrankGSterleJr

I seriously doubt news commentators' claims that, collectively, Donald Trump’s ardent supporters deep-down truly believe his implausible (even by many other conservatives’ standards) assertions of mass voter fraud.

Long before election day, Trump was saying he may not respect a Biden win, as though preparing his voter base for his inevitable refusal to leave office.

Post-election, just the loss itself was/is touted as sufficient proof of the unverifiable claim Trump was cheated from a victory due to atypically massive electoral-ballot fraud.

Contrary to mainstream commentators’ assertions that the Capitol Hill rioters really believe that Trump had won the election, it is possible most of the latter maintain that ‘Trump was cheated’ as an excuse for their attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s (apparently quite) legitimate electoral win—or at least make it as unpleasant as possible, as we saw on Jan. 6.

The rioters (and Trump) may have been enraged enough at his defeat by the supposedly ‘socialist’ Biden, they were now going to raise hell.

Or perhaps those supporters consciously or subconsciously believe that he has to remain in office for some perceived greater good—perhaps to save the nation or even to do ‘God’s will’—regardless of his democratically-decided election loss.

It may be a case of that perhaps most dangerous of ideologies: the end justifies the means.

I’m not equating Trump or his base support to any of history’s genocidal maniacs, but the most frightful example of that philosophical justification is/was the pogrom, the primary implementers of which know they’re committing mass murder yet still genuinely perceive it all as part of an ultimately greater good.

thewonder

↪Judaka

I hear what you're saying, but the problem with just not talking with other political actors is that they are out there, in positions of power, and often have produced situations that do need to be somehow mediated, thereby making dialogue requisite, which is sort of an absurd poverty of such a sentiment. What I really mean is that ideally people would engage in discourse not as a contest of wills, but to come to a better understanding of the world, as in Philosophy, or decide upon the best course of action when situations have been produced that require some form of mediation, as in Politics.

I do think that that people should learn to engage in genuine dialogue and to mediate history rather than to become subject to it would actually change the world for the better and to a very significant degree.

Guy Debord, who wouldn't be likely to sympathize with such sentiment, is famous for his concept of the Spectacle. People think that the Spectacle is the mass media, but it is actually the entire political foray. The idea is that it's like some grand melodrama that you just can't look away from. I was and still am of a very far Left political position. I'm not suggesting that people should sacrifice their ideals in the pursuit of some sort of compromise; what I'm suggesting is that people should actively disengage from political debate as such, as all of it is ultimately sensational. In a way, this is sort of a-political, as it is to withdraw from Politics as we have come to understand it. At the same time, it is also markedly political, as it seeks to reify what is veritable of Politics.

To your question of topics, I have few answers, but will, perhaps, address later if I can think of how to.

thewonder

↪FrankGSterleJr

Oh, I greatly discount such claims as well.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

So, what, are we going to wage a public hanging now? The guy incited a riot. So what? God knows I've tried to.

Echarmion

What I really mean is that ideally people would engage in discourse not as a contest of wills, but to come to a better understanding of the world, as in Philosophy, or decide upon the best course of action when situations have been produced that require some form of mediation, as in Politics. — thewonder

One problem open political discourse might face is that there is some evidence that humans have some kind of "political bias", which is to say that as social animals we have very deeply embedded reactions in social interactions. And politics is essentially the most important social interaction, since it mediates power, and therefore survival.

Humans have a tendency to either follow power (smart, if you want to survive) or rise in opposition to it (also smart, if you can win), but not to engage in rational discourse about power. There is, I believe, also some research that shows that people react negatively to politicians admitting mistakes, which seems to imply that people have a bias towards "strongmen". This predictably leads to politicians and movements to try to demonstrate their infallibility, with all the consequences this has.

thewonder

↪Echarmion

I highly doubt that science proves that most human beings have an innate predisposition to follow authoritarian leaders, which begs that absurd conclusion that despotism is somehow natural.

Mutual Aid was also, in part, put forth as a scientific text.

Judaka

↪thewonder

When I think about how the world has been changed, very rarely do I come to the conclusion that it changed due to "genuine dialogue". The majority are simply not interested in politics or lack the power to make a difference. Better to galvanise like-minded people to be more active than to convert people who disagree with you. People are trying to mediate history but they're trying to do it in the ways that appear most effective rather than most civilised.

You seem to want people to both abandon the effective methods of being politically involved but also to be more politically involved in the less effective ways. If we're talking about making an actual difference, what's a better use of my time?
1. Engage in serious discourse with people who disagree with me
2. Spread misinformation around about my political opponents

I was talking about the average person like me who is just discussing politics for fun or education or out of passion, as is done on this forum. If I wanted to make a real difference in politics, I should go collect donations or something, why would I waste my time trying to convince someone to swap ends on the political spectrum or whatever, that just seems impossible. Sadly, a majority of people doing nothing, are actually no match for a small but politically motivated, organised group, haven't we seen that time and time again?

I was just saying that the vitriol between average citizens could be reduced, for the dedicated and politically motivated, there's no stopping what's going on, they're just doing what works best.

Echarmion

↪thewonder

A lot of "natural" human behaviours are bad, we could just add the tendency towards authoritarianism on the list. But calling it a tendency towards authoritarianism or despotism is perhaps stretching it. From what I know, "natural" band-level hunter-gatherer societies have very flat hierarchies and the leaders of these bands have very little coercive power. So the authority that would "naturally" be gained is very small.

For this tendency to lead to despotism requires the additional "unnatural" imposition of higher organisation.

But I don't think it's much in dispute that we associate confidence with competence as well as status with competence. Perhaps I remember this wrongly though.

thewonder

↪Judaka

I don't know that I agree with this distinction between the seriously politically motivated and the general public. It's true that a situation as such exists, but should it be? Aren't, in so far that we're sincerely engaged in Politics, we to assume that everyone ought to both be judicious and well-informed as to what is going on? That common people are somehow incapable of not being misled is either too cynical or patronizing.

The way I see things, Politics is genuine dialogue. The need for it arises because of that conflicts do. Any form of equitable conflict resolution requires that all parties are willing to sincerely engage within a debate, which means to be willing to take the perspective of others into consideration.

To what ends are such political machinations effective. The emotive patronizing that you see on MSNBC and the paranoid anger deliberately incited by Fox News are both effective means to galvanize a populace, but where have they led us now? Donald Trump now wants to start a splinter of the American Right and there is talk of trying him for treason. I like MSNBC better than Fox News because I would prefer to witness people pretend to care for the world, rather than offer the pretense of some grossly misguided righteous indignation, but the both of them are ultimately manipulative. Psychological warfare originates authoritarianism. By that people should actively disengage from the political foray as it stands now, I do think that the world would change for the better.

Alas, though, I feel like I am moralizing and beginning to bore myself. There should just be libertarian socialists, people who care about human rights, various dissidents, and everyone should agree to have calm, rational, insightful, and erudite conversations. Can anyone really not agree with that?

thewonder

But I don't think it's much in dispute that we associate confidence with competence as well as status with competence. Perhaps I remember this wrongly though — Echarmion

Oh, this goes on. It's kind of an aporia that people tend to assume that chauvinists make for good leaders and that the wealthy know what is best for society, though.

Kenosha Kid

By that same token, though, isn't trying Donald Trump for treason kind of excessive? He's been made enough of an example of already. — thewonder

How did turning a blind eye to high crimes come from your consideration of open discussion?

thewonder

↪Kenosha Kid

Trump's new plan to start some sort of Patriot Party poses a significant problem, but, to try him for treason is absurd. The punishment for it is effectively life in prison or death. The guy incited a riot that resulted in violence. He didn't call for violence. It's utter bosh that he's disputing the election at all, but, to try an insane man for such a crime is just totally heavy-handed and sensational. Perhaps you think that we should bring back the guillotine, though? It's not like that's ever gone awry before.

Furthermore, trying Donald Trump for treason is sure to go down in the history of American right-wing extremism like the legend of Ruby Ridge. Why light that powder keg when he's already out of office and may never be able to return?

Judaka

↪thewonder

I don't take you to be a misinformed or naive person but while what you're describing is unambiguously better than what we have now, what outcome but what we have now, can we expect? How can the average citizen who might spend anywhere from 2 hours to 5 minutes a week thinking about politics be well-informed? The news they watch is biased, their political leaders lie and there's misinformation everywhere. If anyone needed any convincing, hasn't Trump done enough in this regard? People around the US are debating creationism and climate change but can't be misled on complicated political and economic issues?

Any form of equitable conflict resolution requires that all parties are willing to sincerely engage within a debate, which means to be willing to take the perspective of others into consideration. — thewonder

I don't think the politically minded are thinking about conflict resolution, they're thinking about winning power and control and creating a world in the image of their ideals. That doesn't require taking the perspective of others into consideration. It requires you to take power by whatever means are available.
Are you different? What are your goals as a libertarian socialist? When you think about in this way, what everyone is doing may not be pleasant but it makes sense.

What I was saying is that if I believe in capitalism and you believe in socialism, I shouldn't hate you if I hate socialism and you shouldn't hate me if you hate capitalism. Let's have a reasonable discussion instead of trying to up the stakes. That doesn't mean you can't seriously try to advance the cause of socialism politically but I think if you didn't hold it against me that I don't like socialism then that opens the doors for a "calm and rational conversation". That's all I was saying, not that we should avoid talking when it matters.

thewonder

↪Judaka

I don't know. I was just longing for the ecstatic and feeling optimistic.

While I do believe that you, in good faith, are perfectly capable of engaging in meaningful political debate, I just think that you're too cynical. If Politics is incapable of becoming as it ideally should, what's the point of engaging in it at all? It seems like things will just forever continue more or less as they are now. Should society really just kind of plateu after the Neo-Liberal era or whatever? Another world, I feel like, must be possible. If a few politicians took a step back and decided to engage in genuine debate, I think that most people would find for that to be so much more preferable to what exists now that it would actually catch on. I don't know.

As per your question as to specific highly-charged political issues, I think that that such issues even exist is a symptom of this particular predicament. In a world without sensational discourse, that Creationism should be taught during elementary education would never be taken seriously enough to become something that people ever feel a need to debate. The leader of the October Revolution also probably wouldn't be embalmed in a tomb on Red Square like a museum exhibit for an Egyptian pharaoh. Every country in the world would adopt the Nordic model, there would be a proliferation of communes that generally agree to some form of nonviolence, permanent autonomous zones, and micronations, and there would be a forum on the internet for people to have conversations with other human beings and treat them as such other than this one, which, as to what I can tell from my brief intervals here, kind of says a lot about the political ecology of the internet in general.

Judaka

↪thewonder

Every country in the world would adopt the Nordic model, there would be a proliferation of communes that generally agree to some form of nonviolence, permanent autonomous zones, and micronations, — thewonder

Heh, you really believe that in a world without sensational discourse, your political ideals would come to fruition? Politics is engaged in regardless of whether it's "incapable of becoming as it ideally should" because pragmatically minded people recognise that politics is important. It will never be unimportant.
You are a hopeless optimist I have to say, I will leave you to your dreaming.

thewonder

↪Judaka

I'll take in stride. 'Til we meet again!

On Open Political Discussion

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions