sector where politics should not be in

[danyboy27]

lets forget about communism and capitalism, do you think there is sector, places where politics should never interfere in society?

Personaly, i think politics should stay away from most of the things in society.

i think sports and education has well has the medecine sector should not be politicized in any way, unfortunatly clashes happen verry often in today society between politics and those domains.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I agree with you whole-heartedly spetznaz. The problem is we have a system where the some morons can't understand the necessity of spending money on education, medicare, or infrastructure. Worse, they line their pockets for the most modest accomplishment, and by they I mean all involved.

[danyboy27]

I agree with you whole-heartedly spetznaz. The problem is we have a system where the some morons can't understand the necessity of spending money on education, medicare, or infrastructure. Worse, they line their pockets for the most modest accomplishment, and by they I mean all involved.


i am not against having a governement investing moneyor not in a sector, the problem is that in certain situation, governements are politicizing stuff that should never be.

take the supreme court judges in the us, wtf is that, they are chosen by the president, what the fucking point! what the next step? rock paper scizor?

things like that drive me insane. Same goes for teacher praising x or y politicians. its not really important wich politician they praise, the problem is that they are praising a politician, measure should be taken for such cases. I dont care if its kissinger or Lenin, praising a politician have nothing to do in a classroom.

[Plagueround]

If politics should not be involved in things such as health care, education, etc. What do you propose happen to these things and how they should be implemented? Not to say I entirely disagree with you, I am genuinely curious what you think.

[Demogorgon]

Politics makes its way into everything. That isn't necessarily a good thing, but it is inevitable. Healthcare for instance is a big one. I find it barbaric for instance that people should be denied healthcare based on their wealth or lack thereof. That is not a controversial position here, but it is in America, hence it becomes a very political issue indeed. And that is just one example.

[Pogue]

Politics is everywhere. Hopefully, in a communist society, it will go away, and we can live without it, without the struggles, problems and need for it. Until then, politics is life.

[danyboy27]

If politics should not be involved in things such as health care, education, etc. What do you propose happen to these things and how they should be implemented? Not to say I entirely disagree with you, I am genuinely curious what you think.

the same way religions are kept out of public institutions in certains countries.

[Plagueround]

the same way religions are kept out of public institutions in certains countries.

Well, how we do that here is by making them pay no taxes and having their members donate money to keep them running. This would be something I would fight to the bitter and messy end if people tried to do this with education and medical services.

If I understand what you are getting at, what you are suggesting is that people take the political aspects out of these areas, which is simply impossible so long as there is a need for monetary funding of some kind for these types of projects, and so long as people are concerned about where their money is going and what it's being spent on, the issue will be politicized...unless you privatize the entire thing, something I'm not sure you would want to support. I know I wouldn't, and I'd probably get political about it.

Basically...
Economics Cannot Be Separated From Politics.

[danyboy27]

Well, how we do that here is by making them pay no taxes and having their members donate money to keep them running. This would be something I would fight to the bitter and messy end if people tried to do this with education and medical services.

If I understand what you are getting at, what you are suggesting is that people take the political aspects out of these areas, which is simply impossible so long as there is a need for monetary funding of some kind for these types of projects, and so long as people are concerned about where their money is going and what it's being spent on, the issue will be politicized...unless you privatize the entire thing, something I'm not sure you would want to support. I know I wouldn't, and I'd probably get political about it.

Basically...

damn, perhaps i was misunderstood.
when i say not to be poticized i meant that there would be no advocacy of political party in those places, no religion, no politics. Lobbying should be banned has well.

[RGacky3]

Lobbying should be banned has well.

In practice, Impossible. Like was said, its impossible to seperate money and politics, because money IS power. You can stop every single donation to politicians and political parties, Money will still be in control of politics, because it does'nt matter how good a government is, the Capitalists run the money, which is the blood of a country.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Keep religion and politics separated and it's all good.

[Dean]

lets forget about communism and capitalism, do you think there is sector, places where politics should never interfere in society?

Personaly, i think politics should stay away from most of the things in society.

i think sports and education has well has the medecine sector should not be politicized in any way, unfortunatly clashes happen verry often in today society between politics and those domains.

No, those are intrinsically political sectors. Whatever is social is political, and you can't remove that from those sectors without removing the human component.

[Hiero]

All these sectors are a part of the superstructure and are affected by the contradictions and conflicts of class society.You can not try to devoid them of politics the natural conflicts that arise create political opinions about these sectors.

Anyway as communist we should engage to politicise this areas (which are allready politicised) we want education, medicines, sciences, sport etc for the proleteriat under a nationalised system.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Politicians should get out of our bodies for starters.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Politics should stay out from every single aspect of our life.

[dissipate]

lets forget about communism and capitalism, do you think there is sector, places where politics should never interfere in society?

Personaly, i think politics should stay away from most of the things in society.

i think sports and education has well has the medecine sector should not be politicized in any way, unfortunatly clashes happen verry often in today society between politics and those domains.

From a reductionist standpoint the foundations of political belief have no truth value at all. Therefore, those who act on behalf of those beliefs should be considered mentally ill. Just like how religion has no truth value, and priests should be considered mentally ill.

Therefore, politics should not be in anything because politics is based on nothing.

[Dejavu]

From a reductionist standpoint the foundations of political belief have no truth value at all. Therefore, those who act on behalf of those beliefs should be considered mentally ill. Just like how religion has no truth value, and priests should be considered mentally ill.

Therefore, politics should not be in anything because politics is based on nothing.


Agreed. Politics ( i.e. the 'science' of government) should be confined to the realm of mysticism just like religion.

[JimmyJazz]

do you think there is sector, places where politics should never interfere in society?

Places where politics should never interfere, no. Places where the state--including a state that claims to represent workers--should never interfere, hell yes.

But to be honest I'm not even sure what it would mean to keep "politics" out of certain areas. What are you going to do, censor artists because you think their art is too political? Well, censorship is a massively political move.

[BobKKKindle$]

The idea that any aspect of society can be completely apolitical is wrong, as politics is not solely concerned with government policies, but with power relationships in general. This is why people often speak of "office politics" in reference to the exchange and exercise of power that can occur in a commercial environment such as an office, and this is why various components of social and cultural life, such as the family, should be considered spheres of political activity that need to be analyzed and contested. In fact, this basic recognition - that power, and therefore politics, permeates all aspects of society - was summed up by the feminist movement with the slogan "the personal is political". Confusingly, the OP listed healthcare as one of the areas where politics (which he apparently understands as government involvement, despite the inadequacy of this understanding) should not exist despite the fact that if healthcare is not provided by the government and financed with taxation, the only other way to obtain this vital service is through the market, by paying for it, and this would automatically lead to the most destitute and vulnerable sections of society being denied healthcare. The decision of whether the government should provide healthcare or not is a political issue, our answer to which depends on how we understand the role of the government, and the relative obligations of individuals and society as a whole, as well as the financial capabilities of the state. Perhaps the OP thinks that the government can still provide healthcare, and yet not make this function of government political, by refusing to impose moral values on the healthcare system. This, again, is illusory. The issue of whether immigrants should be allowed to enjoy healthcare provision is bound up with the government's policy on citizenship and border controls - surely one of the most controversial areas of policy-making in any industrialized society - and reveals underlying political values. Similarly, the government will also be forced to decide on which types of healthcare should be available through the public system - should doctors be allowed to distribute contraception to teenagers without the knowledge or consent of parents? Should the government provide procedures which apply specifically to certain cultural and ethnic groups, and reflect the role of religious oppression within these groups, such as hymen reconstruction surgery? There is no objective answer to these questions, and any given answer is based on a set of normative preferences, and corresponds to the opinions and interests of various groups within society, and as such it is impossible to have an apolitical healthcare system, education system, etc.


the same way religions are kept out of public institutions in certains countries. The decision to maintain a secular state is a political act and is still controversial today, both in terms of whether a secular state is desirable, and how a secular state should be implemented in reality - consider the recent debates over whether Muslim teachers and students should be allowed to wear the hijab in France, a country with a long secular tradition, as an example.

[IcarusAngel]

Agree with the above.

Marxism is also a very political and critical look at modern politics. I've read various critiques of political economy though, even from some on the right, that question are current concept of economics.

I think in Marxism, or in a free society, especially anarchism, the problems we would face would indeed truly be the problem of people, because there would be no hierarchical structure that compels them to act in a certain way (as has been the case in all governments in history from monarchy to capitalism).

In order to deal with those problems, the problems of power, or of arbitrary authority and so on, would require some sorts of politics. If you study a lot of philosophy, you see that the power aspect of politics is often discussed and defined (usually the ability to get others to do things they normally wouldn't do, etc.).

As it stands now, political science is far more realistic than economics at looking at our problems, and, AFAIK, modern political scientists are the ONLY ones to have foundational critiques of capitalism.

[danyboy27]

well, i have no illusion on that, its normal that politics are in CERTAINS fields, and its perfectly normal that politics influence certains things.

what i am trying to say is that when politics collide with for exemple education, it can go terribly wrong. i am talking about indoctrinations of peoples, and idealizations of certain idea, forcing stuff in people head rather than letting them think by themselves.

also, its important to remember that 99% of the moderns military clusterfuck are the dirrect result of heavy involvements of politics into the whole military process. Personally, i have no problem of having politician ordering stuff to their armies, but when the general say that we cant and you ignore him, it result in bad surprises.

[BobKKKindle$]

its normal that politics are in CERTAINS fields, and its perfectly normal that politics influence certains things.No, politics exists in everything, not merely in terms of government policy fields, but also in aspects of social and cultural life which lie beyond the control of the government, because politics is concerned with the exchange and exercise of power, and power is a universal feature of life in a capitalist society. It could be argued that, with regard to education and healthcare, there are certain kinds of policies that are preferable from a left-wing perspective, such as allowing doctors to distribute free contraception in order to ensure that adolescents are able to have sex safely and minimize the risk of pregnancy, or not teaching religion in schools, but these policies are in no way apolitical, they simply represent a different kind of politics, reflecting different normative values. You are also incredibly naive in suggesting that wars are the product of the interference of politicians in the military establishment, given that wars are ultimately the result of competition between capitalist states over control of the world's markets and raw materials, deriving from the capitalist system itself, and, as members of the ruling class, and as individuals who have an interest in sustaining the role of the military as a major political institution and recipient of state funding, generals have historically been key supporters of imperialist wars.

[danyboy27]

No, politics exists in everything, not merely in terms of government policy fields, but also in aspects of social and cultural life which lie beyond the control of the government, because politics is concerned with the exchange and exercise of power, and power is a universal feature of life in a capitalist society. It could be argued that, with regard to education and healthcare, there are certain kinds of policies that are preferable from a left-wing perspective, such as allowing doctors to distribute free contraception in order to ensure that adolescents are able to have sex safely and minimize the risk of pregnancy, or not teaching religion in schools, but these policies are in no way apolitical, they simply represent a different kind of politics, reflecting different normative values. You are also incredibly naive in suggesting that wars are the product of the interference of politicians in the military establishment, given that wars are ultimately the result of competition between capitalist states over control of the world's markets and raw materials, deriving from the capitalist system itself, and, as members of the ruling class, and as individuals who have an interest in sustaining the role of the military as a major political institution and recipient of state funding, generals have historically been key supporters of imperialist wars.

i dont really agree with you on that, distributing free contraception have nothing to do with politics, its COMMON SENSE, not teaching religion is COMMON SENSE has well, it have nothing to do with your political point of view. i know countless of hardcore rightwinger that would support those things beccause they are common sense.

[danyboy27]

i love that attitude kindle, if we dont agree with you, we got a bad reputation point.
great.

[BobKKKindle$]

i dont really agree with you on that, distributing free contraception have nothing to do with politics, its COMMON SENSE

It may be common sense to you, but this is meaningless - by saying that something is "common sense" we simply mean that it seems like the most sensible and obvious thing to do for us as individuals, and there are other members of society who have different political views who might view the distribution of contraception as the exact opposite of common sense, possibly because they see such a policy as undermining traditional morality by encouraging adolescents to have sex at an earlier age. Similarly, the meaning of common sense changes with time in accordance with scientific discoveries and shifting cultural attitudes such that, whereas it would once be considered "common sense" to say that God exists, and to worship God, today this is disputed, and increasing numbers of people are arguing that believe in the existence of anything for which there is no supporting evidence is fundamentally illogical. This shows that, as far as politics is concerned, truth is contingent on individual circumstances, and it is impossible for the government or any other entity with power at its disposal to be apolitical in the way it acts.

[danyboy27]

It may be common sense to you, but this is meaningless - by saying that something is "common sense" we simply mean that it seems like the most sensible and obvious thing to do for us as individuals, and there are other members of society who have different political views who might view the distribution of contraception as the exact opposite of common sense, possibly because they see such a policy as undermining traditional morality by encouraging adolescents to have sex at an earlier age. Similarly, the meaning of common sense changes with time in accordance with scientific discoveries and shifting cultural attitudes such that, whereas it would once be considered "common sense" to say that God exists, and to worship God, today this is disputed, and increasing numbers of people are arguing that believe in the existence of anything for which there is no supporting evidence is fundamentally illogical. This shows that, as far as politics is concerned, truth is contingent on individual circumstances, and it is impossible for the government or any other entity with power at its disposal to be apolitical in the way it acts.

ya okay if you put it that way, a complete erradication of politics in most of the field would be impossible. see? there is no need to smite me with a bad rep point impliying that i am stupid to make me understand something.