Political Theory

[CommieBastard]

We have in the divisions of these forums an example of a long standing dogma within communist thought, being that political theory, especially marxist, is somehow distinct from the philosophy which preceded it. This is taken from when Marx rails against the philosophers who preceded him in the quote 'The philosophers have only interpreted the World in various ways; the point, however, is to change it'. However, similar discontent with prior philosophers can be seen as far back as socrates and plato, who hated with vehemence the Sophists who came before them. Whereas the Sophists charged for their ideas, and were little interested in the actual development of philosophical techniques, and their application to the world, Plato in particular sought to advance them to the degree that we might develop a moral system for ordering society (sound familiar?). Admittedly, the ideas of Plato and Socrates were not then included in a school of thought named Sophistry, but Sophistry is now a part of Philosophy (or rather, the ideas of the Sophists are discussed within Philosophy).

The accusation that philosophers ONLY interpret the World, and never seek to change it has a large weight of evidence against it. One need only look at the political activities of John Locke, and those of his associates the Levellers.

Essentially one can say that though Political Theory, as it is called here, is distinguishable from Philosophy as an overall subject, it is entirely indistinguishable from Political Philosophy. I would make the claim that we would do better to either merge the two forums, or give this one it's proper name, as it is not sensible to discuss the ideas of Political Philosophers like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro or Guevara without the proper context of the weight of ideas from previous centuries. In fact, I would say that losing this context is dangerous, and is exactly what lead to the spawning of the semi-religious unthinking dogma of Stalinist Communism.

[redstar2000]

I would make the claim that we would do better to either merge the two forums, or give this one it's proper name, as it is not sensible to discuss the ideas of Political Philosophers like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro or Guevara without the proper context of the weight of ideas from previous centuries.

Why is that "not sensible"?

I think the consensus among Marxists is that Marx departed so sharply from his predecessors that little is to be gained by referencing them (except for those unfortunates who still take Hegel seriously).

I'm sure there are graduate students somewhere who are picking out the strands of philosophical thought over the centuries that eventually "led to" Marx.

I'm willing to leave them to it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Guerrilla22]

Being that political theory is in itself is a form of philosophy you can make the argumnet that there should be one forum, however quite a few of the post in the politics board actually focus more on current events and tend to not be so heavy on political theory, therefore I think there should be seperate boards.

[CommieBastard]

I think the consensus among Marxists is that Marx departed so sharply from his predecessors that little is to be gained by referencing them (except for those unfortunates who still take Hegel seriously).

you are quite right and i did not dispute the fact that most marxists dogmatically follow this idea. It is normally due to reference to the quote i gave.

The idea that nothing can be gained from discussing ideas, simply because the latest ideas depart extremely from them, is definately nonsensical. You do not have to agree with an idea to gain something from its discussion


I'm sure there are graduate students somewhere who are picking out the strands of philosophical thought over the centuries that eventually "led to" Marx.

Maybe there are, however, it is normally the case that this is covered some time earlier in ones academic career. For example, in the second year of my current university there is a module which does just that, it is a politics module that is also a core option for philosophy students.

It examines political philosophy from Hobbes through Locke, Rousseau, Burke, Paine, Wollstonecroft and Mill and finishes up on Marx.


however quite a few of the post in the politics board actually focus more on current events and tend to not be so heavy on political theory

I find this puzzling. Philosophy has often made appeals to real-world events and situations as the basis for it's arguments, in fact many consider that it is essential that it should...

[redstar2000]

The idea that nothing can be gained from discussing ideas, simply because the latest ideas depart extremely from them, is definitely nonsensical. You do not have to agree with an idea to gain something from its discussion.

Well, there are usually some pretty good reasons why the "latest ideas" have made such an extreme departure while the older ideas are considered obsolete and of interest only in an intellectual/historical sense.

It seems to me that the Philosophy forum is precisely designed for the discussion of pre-Marxist and non-Marxist philosophers and we even have a sub-forum for theologians.

What more could one ask?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[CommieBastard]

well, i dont really wish to complain, just voicing a random thought.


Well, there are usually some pretty good reasons why the "latest ideas" have made such an extreme departure while the older ideas are considered obsolete and of interest only in an intellectual/historical sense.

obsolete because they are, or because of the arrogance of the exponents of the newer idea? Ideas are timeless, they can never be obsolete, unless you view the world purely from the point of view of a particular society as it is given to you. Doing so is one of the gravest errors of any theories, especially political ones, where there is not even the remote possibility of an absolute (like there is in science, where such views are still problematic).

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 05:28 PM
Ideas are timeless, they can never be obsolete, unless you view the world purely from the point of view of a particular society as it is given to you. Doing so is one of the gravest errors of any theories, especially political ones, where there is not even the remote possibility of an absolute (like there is in science, where such views are still problematic).
Would you not view the philosophy/ideology of slavery and monarchy, for instance, as being obsolete?

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 11:57 PM
The accusation that philosophers ONLY interpret the World, and never seek to change it has a large weight of evidence against it. One need only look at the political activities of John Locke, and those of his associates the Levellers.
Being a philosopher and being an activist are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I understand where you're coming from, in terms of the political theory esposed by various socialist leaders, such as Marx and Lenin and Guevara, in that there is a philosophy behind it. That philosophy is based on the ideology that all these men and women followed, the rights of all the people to ownership of society as opposed to a chosen few. I think that's the important part.

[redstar2000]

Obsolete because they are, or because of the arrogance of the exponents of the newer idea? Ideas are timeless, they can never be obsolete...

I beg your pardon. The philosophical justifications for theism, slavery, despotism and feudalism are all clearly obsolete.

If that's "arrogance", so be it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[CommieBastard]

The 'justifications' for such arguments are still there, they are timeless, and they are important, because without those concepts we do not have the basis for our arguments against those concepts. If we disregard them, do not learn them, because they are not generally put into practice today, then we are leaving ourselves open to such arguments becoming once again prevalent, or at least having influence. The fact of the matter is that even by your terms they are not obsolete, as they are all in practice around the world today.

[percept¡on]

I don't think the philosophical arguments for obsolete political systems are necessarily obsolete themselves. Plato's Republic and Hobbes Leviathan are obviously obsolete in the sense that no one in their right mind would desire these sort of systems to be implemented today, but mankind's base of knowledge is cumulative, and from these works others were able to critique and build from them.

It is important to know the underlying philosophical arguments for undesirable systems, so that they do not seem irrational. If you asked someone, "Why would we want a dictatorship?" and they replied, "So that one man can have arbitrary control over everything that goes on in the polity and can use his unchecked power to terrorize and brutalize his citizenry," then you would think only a madman would desire such a system. But if someone came with Hobbes' argument, that without a strong state we'd degenerate into a state of perpetual war and chaos, and we need a strong Leviathan to maintain peace and allow mutual prosperity, it sounds more rational. If someone has never heard this argument (and critiques of it) before it might sound attractive. Likewise with arguments for fascism; I think personally that fascism is acquiring too mythical a character these days, most people wouldn't know a fascist state if they saw it, they only identify fascism with military parades, brownshirts and secret police.

If ideas are 'obsolete', then open discussion of them poses us no threat whatsoever; the more we talk about these ideas, the less harmful they will be.

[bobby]

I mainly agree with RedStar on this issue, so there's not much else to say.

[redstar2000]

The 'justifications' for such arguments are still there, they are timeless, and they are important, because without those concepts we do not have the basis for our arguments against those concepts.

No, it is no longer a matter of philosophical dispute; the practice of those ideas is sufficient to render judgment. After a certain point, history has the decisive voice in these matters.

As in most things.

Only in the cozy confines of a Philosophy Department lounge can one still argue those matters as a pure intellectual exercise..."as if" they were "timeless".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[CommieBastard]

Only in the cozy confines of an american suburb, with a vast ignorance of the world today, might you think the practice of those ideas you consider obsolete to be truly obsolete. They exist, they are acted on. They are not just acted on in obscure and unimportant places.

They should be relevant even to you, living in the USA. Your country's constitution is supposedly founded on the principles of Locke. One of the greatest arguments against the USA is to show the contradictions in its system which come from it's failure to put it's principles into practice, and that requires an understanding of the philosophies which founded it.

[redstar2000]

Only in the cozy confines of an American suburb, with a vast ignorance of the world today, might you think the practice of those ideas you consider obsolete to be truly obsolete. They exist, they are acted on. They are not just acted on in obscure and unimportant places.

I do not live in a suburb. Otherwise, I have no idea to what this rather cryptic paragraph refers.


One of the greatest arguments against the USA is to show the contradictions in its system which come from its failure to put its principles into practice, and that requires an understanding of the philosophies which founded it.

The United States was not founded on "philosophical principles". It was founded on the desires of a slave-holding aristocracy and a rising merchant class to escape the political control of a distant aristocracy.

Having done so, they proceeded at once to exploit the wealth, resources, and people of North America to the best of their abilities...without having to share the plunder with British overlords.

Ever since, this has been the practice of the American ruling class...regardless of whatever "philosophy" happened to be fashionable at the time. What they do now is simply a global version of what they did from the very beginning.

The practice of American imperialism, at home and abroad, renders philosophical critiques superfluous; they have demonstrated their implacable hostility to any progressive initiative anywhere in the world.

If it amuses you, by all means expound upon the anti-Lockean "deviations" of the American ruling class...but do it in the Philosophy Forum.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas