Does anyone think politics is really the answer?

[Falvlun]

That's a good point. Things are always fine, until humans get involved. One issue I see, though, is that, even the most well-intentioned person, once given some power, tends to abuse that power. I think this is just human nature. If we can get to the bottom of why this is, then we can take steps to correct it.

But back to my statement, "until humans get involved". It's in our natures to want power, money, etc, and becoming a politician is one of the best, and easiest, ways to accomplish that. Politics tends to bring out the worst in human nature, unfortunately. Fix the person, then fix the people, or something like that.

"What are we, then, at present?"
"We find that at present the human race is divided politically into one wise man, nine knaves and ninety fools out of every hundred. That is, by an optimistic observer. The nine knaves assemble themselves under the banner of the most knavish among them, and become 'politicians': the wise man stands out, because he knows himself to be hopelessly outnumbered, and devotes himself to poetry, mathematics or philosophy; while the ninety fools plod off behind the banners of the nine villains, according to fancy, into the labyrinths of chicanery, malice and warfare. It is pleasant to have command, observed Sancho Panza, even over a flock of sheep, and that is why politicians raise their banners. It is, moreover, the same thing for the sheep, whatever the banner. If it is democracy, then the nine knaves will become members of parliament; if fascism will become party leaders; if communism, commissars. Nothing will be different, except the name. The fools will still be fools, the knaves still leaders, the result still exploitation. As for the wise man, his lot will be much the same under any ideology. Under democracy he will be encouraged to starve to death in a garret, under fascism he will be put in a concentration camp, under communism he will be liquidated. This is an optimistic but on the whole scientific statement (...)"

From T.H. White's "The Once and Future King, the final book: The Book of Merlyn"

I am currently reading this book right now. At it's core, it is about the philosophy of politics, and how and why man has gone so wrong. The above quote does seem to be an accurate view of things. The committee of animals, brought together by Merlyn, to discuss this issue, mocks Aristotle distinguishing man as the "political animal", and suggests that rather, we should be named "Homo apolitical", since humans, alone out of the animals, cannot seem to figure out politics for the life of us.

 

[Falvlun]

Perhaps the question is to first ask "Why do we need politics in the first place?" What purpose does it serve?

 

[sandandfoam]

Perhaps the question is to first ask "Why do we need politics in the first place?" What purpose does it serve?

I don't think we need politics as a profession. I think we need the freedom to organise ourselves for ourselves. We need to move away from the idea of 'great men' and 'leaders'.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a good question. I think, and this is purely theoretical, that the people can govern themselves, on a local level. Almost like an anarcho-primitivism style society, but not quite. But there are flaws even in this. It would have to be changed somewhat, but not totally out of the question, although it's highly unlikely to be even remotely feasible.

The most vicious politics is local.
To get rid of politics would require extensive genetic re-engineering of all humans.
But even this process would be driven by politics.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps the question is to first ask "Why do we need politics in the first place?" What purpose does it serve?

Politics serves the purpose of avoiding a single individual exercising total control with no outside influences.
Introduce one more person, & you get politics.

 

[WyattDerp]

Perhaps the question is to first ask "Why do we need politics in the first place?" What purpose does it serve?

Politics (from Greek politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the art or science of influencing people on a civic, or individual level, when there are more than 2 people involved.

I'd say it's inevitable as soon as you have more than two beings that don't ignore each other (though I would say even ignoring is a political stance/action). Do we *need* molecules? Who knows, but they're a fact of our situation.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think we need politics as a profession. I think we need the freedom to organise ourselves for ourselves. We need to move away from the idea of 'great men' and 'leaders'.

I agree that politics as a profession does seem to be... unfortunate.

But I don't think that we necessarily need to remove the concept of "leaders" or "great men". After all, leadership itself isn't bad and could be necessary. The example in my book was of the geese. The geese (in the imagination of the author) do not elect a leader and yet they have one: the one who guides them on their great migration path. S/he is the goose that out of the group is the most reliable and has had the greatest experience or ability or knowledge of the route. It is natural to look to this goose as the leader and trust him or her to bring them safely to the destination, whereas if another goose or no goose were chosen, the safe end of the voyage would be less certain.

I also don't believe that everyone is equal in ability. Some people are just plain smarter than others. Some people may have more courage than others. Some people may have better people skills than others. Some people may be better at figuring out the Chicago public transportation system than others, and so on. Not everyone is great, and some people are. I don't see the problem with acknowledging that.

 

[Falvlun]

The most vicious politics is local.
To get rid of politics would require extensive genetic re-engineering of all humans.
But even this process would be driven by politics.

As for the genetic re-engineering, my pessimism says that that indeed is the only answer.

Politics serves the purpose of avoiding a single individual exercising total control with no outside influences.
Introduce one more person, & you gots politics.

Well, the individual excercising total control would be a form of politics too.

But yes, control may in fact be the purpose of politics-- either its implementation or its amelioration.

 

[Falvlun]

Politics (from Greek politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the art or science of influencing people on a civic, or individual level, when there are more than 2 people involved.

I'd say it's inevitable as soon as you have more than two beings that don't ignore each other (though I would say even ignoring is a political stance/action). Do we *need* molecules? Who knows, but they're a fact of our situation.

My question wasn't rhetorical in nature. It wasn't to imply that we don't need politics or that we should get rid or it all together.

It was genuinely to ask, and get people thinking: Why do we have politics and what purpose does it serve?

Your definition replies: to influence other people.

I do prefer influence over the word "control", though I'm still not perfectly happy with the concept.

 

[WyattDerp]

After all, leadership itself isn't bad and could be necessary.

t is becoming increasingly obvious, that the state is not based on men of strong spirit and natural power. It is increasingly based on the ignorance and passiveness of the people.

-- Gustav Landauer.. who said that nearly 100 years ago I think, and who also said this, which strikes very close to home for me but which I cherish exactly because of that:

You don’t know what order with freedom means! You only know what revolt against oppression is! You don’t know that the rod, discipline, violence, the state and government can only be sustained because of you and because of your lack of socially creative powers that develop order within liberty!

 

[Falvlun]

-- Gustav Landauer.. who said that nearly 100 years ago I think, and who also said this, which strikes very close to home for me but which I cherish exactly because of that:

ou don’t know what order with freedom means! You only know what revolt against oppression is! You don’t know that the rod, discipline, violence, the state and government can only be sustained because of you and because of your lack of socially creative powers that develop order within liberty!

Oh man! I love that part I bolded. I think that hits the nail on the head. The problem is that we, humans, are both passive and uncreative. We are happy with the status quo, because we prefer familiarity, and we are lazy and not particularly bright, in the whole scheme of things.

But "order within liberty". That is a concept to hold on to. That is what we should be striving for, the politics that we should be inventing.

 

[WyattDerp]

Here is more about this wonderful man and his ideas:

A Contemplative Anarchism: Re-Introducing Gustav Landauer

With another great quote:

“The state is a social relationship; a certain way of people relating to one another. It can be destroyed by creating new social relationships; i.e., by people relating to one another differently.”

Even better, the new one could theoretically be built without destroying anything. What we have is a crappy boat, sure; but it would be silly to first destroy the boat, while we're on sea, and then think about how to make a new one... just make new ones, and then move into the ones that work better. Ahhh, I know I'm dreaming, but you can grab these dreams from my cold, dead hands ^^

 

[Secret Chief]

Sure, but I think 'politics' as used here refers to 'politics' as practiced by 'politicians' in 'democracies'.

...yes...and that is politics too.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think we need politics as a profession. I think we need the freedom to organise ourselves for ourselves. We need to move away from the idea of 'great men' and 'leaders'.

Power corrupts "great men" and "leaders" just as easily as it corrupts anyone.

 

[Sunstone]

In the United States, politics is one of those things that people are very passionate about, and they go to great lengths for their voices to be heard. We put alot of effort and time into our political views, parties, and such.

However, one thing that's becoming clear to me is that politics, especially in the US, isn't the answer for anything. All politics does is give power and money to people who need neither. One thing I've noticed over the last four or so elections, is that there wasn't any candidate for presidency worth voting for.

Have we become so complacent that we'll simply settle with the status quo, and not want to put forth the effort for real change? Politicians are never going to do anything for the good of the American people, that much has become clear. So why do we still tolerate it, as if it's somehow going to magically change when nothing else has?

My fiance tells me that the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. It seems that this is the way we've become with our politics. Is anything ever going to change? It's not going to be the politicians who change anything, if it does. It's going to have to be us, when we've finally decided we've had enough.

Current American politics are hardly the ideal for all politics.

 

[Innominate]

Here's a perspective people don't seem to value as much as I would think they would..
What if no answer is correct? Why would one think there is an answer to how to "properly" run anything, let alone the entire governmental and societal construct of the human species?

Human nature isn't perfect (whatever unreachable definition of perfect is used, they all have the unreachable attribute). Furthering the point, humans are very easily (for the most part) swayed by power, so even the best-sounding (and yes, even best-sounding is subjective; good luck finding agreement in the minds of men!) systems cannot stand in this corruption.

How can someone reasonably expect humans to come up with a system that solves even the majority of societal and economic ills? I personally don't think any human will ever witness the day, for the day will never come.

The main point here is that all political systems (even anarchy) have long lists of critics for a reason: they contain flaws. Even if one was trying to minimize overall distress, there would still be disagreements arising amongst men concerning how to do so. Humans are hopeless beings--sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Power corrupts "great men" and "leaders" just as easily as it corrupts anyone.

Probably moreso. Or, to put it another way, the type of people that are attracted to power tend to be the ones most easily corrupted by it.