I think it's easily resolved in the way I suggested above, by saying that politics aiming at equality and liberty that nevertheless uses authority as a means to these ends is Left-wing. — jamalrob

The problem with this is that it is impossible to believe that equality and liberty can ever be imposed by any authority.

The irony is that the Left mostly masquerades as the bringers of freedom and equality by virtue of the guiding hand of beneficent authority, and the Right portray themselves as the deniers of any authority in the name of freedom and equality, and in both cases what is really going on in practice is the pernicious imposition of authority by corrupt power.

The authority of the left pretends to be just and beneficent and the authority of the right pretends not to exist. The only hope for humanity seems to be the enlightenment of the masses. I hope for that but do not expect it.

The only hope for humanity seems to be the enlightenment of the masses. I hope for that but do not expect it. — Janus

In my opinion this is precisely the concrete aim of revolution. It is not the binding together or workers to form a dictatorship, but quite simply, the broadest possible expansion of social education. Education is the necessary pre-revolutionary work of a quality revolution. So there is a serious question that we are confronted with as thinkers, how do we do this? How do we maximize the power of our own lives in the direction of expanding education? We already know this is the great need, the question then becomes how to realize it in the most comprehensive and qualitative terms possible?

However, this question drives us back to the question of property, of space, which is required to produce qualitative existence. Education presupposes material factors in order to achieve quality, without these basic needs it will fail. There are serious questions here, not just question of abstract theory, but questions of praxis.

There are serious questions here, not just question of abstract theory, but questions of praxis. — JerseyFlight

I agree that the salient question is not one of theory, but praxis. How, in a world where power seems to be always in the hands of those who control material resources, or what stands in for them, do we convince those in control, to relinquish some control, and give back to society sufficient of their wealth to enable the adequate education of all?

The other problem is that this is not the only problem. Overpopulation and overuse and abuse of resources, and in general the seemingly almost universal view of the world (not to mention people) as resource, is looking more and more like an emergency.

How, in a world where power seems to be always in the hands of those who control material resources, or what stands in for them, do we convince those in control, to relinquish some control, and give back to society sufficient of their wealth to enable the adequate education of all? — Janus

This question is exactly direct to the issue. Tragic that the class structure makes it so we have to petition those in power in one form or another. This has to stand as an argument against such a system's intelligence. Very difficult is it to see how such organization would be the result of an advanced species, as it amounts to self-negation. The situation is truly dire, millions live in poverty, technology and land are horded and leveraged against the well being and freedom of other humans. This is tyranny.

The question you ask is a live one... how do we approach those in power? We need space to live! We need access to the earth! Private property negates man's ability to meet these needs.

The situation is truly dire, millions live in poverty, technology and land are horded and leveraged against the well being and freedom of other humans. This is tyranny. — JerseyFlight

This is right, however the very existence of all those billions has been made possible by the most energy dense resource there is: fossil fuel. The developed countries have given just enough to the so-called 'Third World' to gratify corrupt leaders who allow their lands to be bled dry, and their subjects to be held in thrall as slave labour wherever it is economically viable (i.e. profitable).

And there are other tyrannies, the one which is most neglected being the tyranny of our species over other species, and the tyrannous pollution and destruction of wild habitats everywhere.

I can see no practicable strategies that could be deployed quickly enough to save enough of the biosphere to enable our current civilization to continue. Proper education of everyone would obviously be a huge step forward, and would likely reverse the trend towards growing populations, but even if it could be brought about, I fear its effects would be too slow in reaching fruition to sufficiently protect the biosphere and with it, humanity's present system.

All species will overuse resources if they can, to their own detriment and even local demise. We have become a global species, and if we overuse resources there is nowhere else to go. To be honest I see little possibility other than humanity's return to gatherer/ hunter and/or simple agrarian life following an enormous reduction of population and complete breakdown of our present systems. How long that will take is anybody's guess, although it's hard for me to imagine it being much more than a century.

Interesting that rational and empirical analysis of the situation brings us to a state of resignation. Like Adorno I am a kind of rational romantic, which simply means I believe in the power of thought.

I fear its effects would be too slow — Janus

I believe this takes us in the direction of a philosophy of the future. That is just it, learning is too damn slow. Thought must construct a way to speed up this process, we don't have any other choice. As far as I see it, this makes scholasticism its own ideology. The question is no longer how to educate, no longer, how to communicate, but how to do it swiftly while minimizing the loss of quality. The more minds combine together to solve this problem the more success is likely to be achieved. My thinking has been in this direction for quite some time now.

Humans want to turn to computers to turn themselves into computers, but I do not see this as a solution, large quantities of information is not the same as quality thought.

Interesting that rational and empirical analysis of the situation brings us to a state of resignation. Like Adorno I am a kind of rational romantic, which simply means I believe in the power of thought. — JerseyFlight

I don't see it as resignation. I "hope for the best and prepare for the worst". I also believe in the power of thought, although not so much in a "mind over matter" sense. So, I think thought is ultimately constrained by actuality. I'd be willing to lend my resources to any strategy for the betterment of human life if I was convinced it had a more than even chance of success. Following that maxim, I would never consider entering politics, for example.

If one had the energy, the right kind of intelligence and the disposable funds to start, I think making a fortune in the financial markets, where no one is directly exploited, and then giving it all back to society in the most effective ways would be one of the most likely successful strategies. Personally I don't possess the talent or the nerve for that, though.

I wonder sometimes if those at the top of the hierarchy really do believe in climate change, and believe that it's already too late, and are just determined to stay on top and in their lives of luxury until the bitter end. They're all old anyway, so their bitter end is coming soon one way or another.

Trying to move this conversation back to the topic of private property and away from the straw-man of State Marxism. This is truly an example of Marx's genius:

"Proletariat and wealth are opposites; as such they form a single whole. They are both creations of the world of private property. The question is exactly what place each occupies in the antithesis. It is not sufficient to declare them two sides of a single whole.

"Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the antithesis, self-satisfied private property.

"The proletariat, on the contrary, is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby its opposite, private property, which determines its existence, and which makes it proletariat. It is the negative side of the antithesis, its restlessness within its very self, dissolved and self-dissolving private property.

"The propertied class and the class of the proletariat present the same human self-estrangement. But the former class feels at ease and strengthened in this self-estrangement, it recognizes estrangement as its own power and has in it the semblance of a human existence. The class of the proletariat feels annihilated in estrangement; it sees in it its own powerlessness and the reality of an inhuman existence. It is, to use an expression of Hegel, in its abasement the indignation at that abasement, an indignation to which it is necessarily driven by the contradiction between its human nature and its condition of life, which is the outright, resolute and comprehensive negation of that nature.

"Within this antithesis the private property-owner is therefore the conservative side, the proletarian the destructive side. From the former arises the action of preserving the antithesis, from the latter the action of annihilating it.

"Indeed private property drives itself in its economic movement towards its own dissolution, but only through a development which does not depend on it, which is unconscious and which takes place against the will of private property by the very nature of things, only inasmuch as it produces the proletariat as proletariat, poverty which is conscious of its spiritual and physical poverty, dehumanization which is conscious of its dehumanization, and therefore self-abolishing. The proletariat executes the sentence that private property pronounces on itself by producing the proletariat, just as it executes the sentence that wage-labour pronounces on itself by producing wealth for others and poverty for itself. When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property.

"When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to believe, because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary. Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete; since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form; since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need — the practical expression of necessity — is driven directly to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself. But it cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of life of society today which are summed up in its own situation. Not in vain does it go through the stern but steeling school of labour. It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today." Marx, The Holy Family, Chapter IV “Critical Criticism” As the Tranquillity of Knowledge, Or “Critical Criticism” As Herr Edgar

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm#4.4

What Marx has stated here is truly heartbreaking. He did not invent the proletariat class, it is a symptom of the capitalist organization of society. And as a symptom it imposes restrictions and limitations on that class.

What is most interesting is when Marx says, "When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to believe, because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary."

This class is not an elite class, Marx recognizes it because the social and economic conditions under which it is forced to live and develop impoverishes its quality and potential. He says this class must negate itself not proliferate itself. This is almost too much to bear.

"It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do."

This is so damn tragic upon reading it I nearly cried.