Politics, Power or Principle?

[Monty Cantsin]

Is the practice of politics a matter of principle or power?

[Whitten]

power, no one in politics has principles.

[BobKKKindle$]

The way you frame your question suggests that the power and principle are in direct opposition - as if power somehow signifies giving up one's principles in order to gain more success through elections of appeal to a larger body of people. If this is indeed what you mean, then in practical terms I still we (as the Socialist movement, not withstanding what other political parties do) should uphold our principles.

A failure to gain widespread popularity amongst the working class with radical socialist ideology shows that the Proletariat has an insufficiently developed class consciousness and that the methods employed in developing class consciousness are not sufficiently effective, such that there may exist a requirement to devote more time and resources to the taks of building support bases in Proletarian communities or engaging with proletarian organisations such as trade unions in order to ensure that the proletariat has a better understanding of the class structure of society that will allow them to recognize what Socialists stand for. It certainly does not signify that our ideology, theory and the structure of the society we envisage, is in some way flawed and does not represent the interests of the proletariat, it is simply is not recognized as such by the proletariat. We should be way of adjusting our principles, as this could result in the formation of a dangerous precedent whereby our politics change from being revolutionary to reformist.

On a theoretical level, though the study of politics is really just the analysis of the power relationships that exist between different social and economic groups, and, in some contexts, individuals. Basically a study of the concept of power.

[manic expression]

My first impression is that politics is about power, almost purely by definition. Can people use principles in politics? Sure, but that's another matter.

However, I have to agree with bobkindles in that the two are not inherently in opposition to one another. One can seek power without sacrificing their principles.

[Hit The North]

Individuals or parties cannot gain power within the existing framework of capitalism without sacrificing principles. Not if they are socialists or otherwise anti-capitalist.

Nevertheless, socialist should have very few principles and only those that can be realized through political struggle. The first principle is to seek the removal of capitalism. The second principle is that only the working class, acting as a class, can remove it.

[Pawn Power]

Before I respond, could you clarify what you mean by "principle"?

[Pawn Power]

I posted this under the Article Submissions. Power and Politics (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66387)

From the foremost philosophical debate on human nature stems Chomsky and Foucault’s disagreement on the motive for class struggle. The premise of their disagreement concerns the authenticity of a “human nature” and of the “limitations” imposed by a framework of established discourse in which such a notion arises. While Chomsky asserts the existence of an innate human nature, Foucault maintains that the mere formulation of such a concept resides in, and is thus restrained by, existing civilization. The basis of this debate also forms the under pinning for the disagreement over the reasons for proletarian engagement in class struggle.

For Chomsky, class struggle is executed for the purpose of “justice,” or the creation of a free society, a society which he claims fulfills the natural human need for creativity. The actual image of this society is not important now, but it still anchors the purpose and logic for proletarian class struggle. Conversely, Foucault puts forward that class struggle is carried out to obtain power. In the case of the proletariat, power is not merely removed from the hands of the ruling class and collectively realized by the proletarian majority but, resultantly class divisions fade, eradicating classes, thus removing all forms of class power. In terms of power, the collective obtainment of power and subsequent elimination of classes favors the working class. Chomsky would argue that this aspiration for preliminary class power and hence the elimination of classes is what is in fact “just,” that this classless society is a “just” society. Whilst in terms of power, class struggle derives from pragmatic self-interest. In other words, collective action in obtaining power benefits the individual, not necessarily in connection to a hypothetical “just” society.

To be sure, popular notions of justice greatly vary to begin with. Even within the political “left” there are those that claim a higher morality, envisioning a “just” society composed of vegans with concepts of “justice” shared between all animals. Of course, this has nothing to do with Chomsky’s premise for justice and it clearly has no relation to proletarian class power. The connection between Chomsky’s motive for class struggle and Foucault’s reason for class struggle lies, if at all, in the comparison between notions of “justice” and “power.” An analogous relation could be postured to be that obtainment of proletarian class power is “just,” that it, out of necessity, creates a “just” society. In contrast, the separation could be much more rigid, presenting power as the sole motivation, entirely unrelated to ideas of “justice” in a discourse structured within class society. Manifestations of this “correlation” or simply “confusion” in terms can be seen through the motivations and aims of the prominent radical student anti-war movement of the 1960’s, SDS (Students for a Democratic Society). Here, the purpose fought for by members of SDS could be a “just” society, conceived of as a “democratic” society. However, on the other hand the suggestion of a “democratic” society could also be understood as one in which power is seized from the ruling class and secured by the working class majority. This again would serve pragmatic self-interest (which does indeed becomes a class-interest), for the even distribution of power in a democratic society would not only release many people from former banal oppression and subjugation, but also permit much more of the populous to live on their terms. The question of whether this represents a “just” or “unjust” society is beside the point. People enter into communities, or class struggle, for the benefit of their community or class, and hence personal benefit. Individual struggle is disregarded for its sheer ineffectiveness and brevity. While the idealist impression of the potential for “justice” presents a benevolent initiative for some, it alone does not explicitly drive class struggle that results in fundamental societal changes. Class struggle brings notions of “justice” into discussion, and while it is circumscribed by established discourse and may prove inconsequential to a novel classless society, it plays no functional role in driving that struggle.

Works Consulted
Chomsky, Noam and Foucault, Michel. The Chomsky Foucault Debate: On Human Nature. New York: The New Press, 2006.