/lit/ - Literature

>>11700244

>>11700244
Ideology has the function of keeping us from seeing that we are eating garbage, so yes. That's why JBP is so retarded. He says we have to embrace ideology with all we have or else we will see the garbage, and since he has no imagination, he can't consider that there is food. He thinks we will starve if we see the garbage and refuse to eat it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk8ibrfXvpQ

>>11700244
Why do we know so LITTLE about how our government functions? Why is our government so inaccessible and unresponsive? Why does the apparatus of democracy cave so readily to public pressure, no matter how bullish or fickle, but denies rational and pragmatic individuals the right to be heard?

>>11700294
Read his Politics: A Work In Constructive Social Theory trilogy as well

>>11700244
Why does every philosophy insist on a 'revelation' that will somehow change the way you perceive the world, but always seem to deliver nothing but the obvious?

For any insight into the way the world works to be valuable, it must be a secret, it should not be something arrived at through common sense or intuition, it should rub against the grain of what is known and understood.

No philosophy I have ever read has ever said or done anything to shock me, make me uncomfortable, or challenged me in a way that made me angry or upset.

No philosophy I have ever read has ever told me something that I did not already know or could not deduce for myself. It always feels as though I am being led endlessly in circles by self-important individuals who promise a grand revelation then never deliver on that promise.

>>11700294
But more specifically, The Political Class.
Being a Republic, and Parliamentary Representative "Democracy" being the dominant method worldwide, there develops a Political Class.
People who are raised and educated and only work in a Legal Class, which in public service is Political Office.

That's why they are out of touch. Same reason any specialized class gets into a cultural bubble.

We are given the idea that legislation is a highly technical job for experts. Those experts are elites, we choose from among that elite.

Why Clintons and Obama were lawyers. Why most Senators are lawyers.

Politics means Policy. The practice of making POLICY.

>>11700327
Yet I can't help but feel there are 'truths' out there, truths that would shock us, truths that would change us, truths that might bring about change or inspire people to act in a way that brings about change.

>>11700337
False Necessity: change can only occur wholesale and through crisis.

Unger really is your boy right now

>>11700340
>>11700337

To be clear: the idea that we can only change TOTALLY, and only through CRISIS, is an example of false necessity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYOOwNRFTcY

>>11700331
They aren't just out of touch, they are invisible! Assuming you manage to track down someone of some importance relating to an issue you care about, (which is a feat in itself) they are completely inaccessible, they surround themselves with people who discourage, sometimes with great violence, any sort of contact with their public.

The public is barred from the workings of government, what we see are showrooms and tours of places politicians themselves never visit.

Just once, I would like to actually TALK to one of my representatives, I would like them to hear what I have to say.

>>11700354
In America we haven't been letting them do this.

We corner them on rooftops and force them into town halls and break their phone service with massive calling campaigns.

Actually works

Being on the extreme left/right means you're 100% convinced you are right so naturally only you and the people on your side should be in charge

>>11700365
See, but thats as a group.
Groups are prone to certain biases and are not always the most rational actors.

>>11700374
The answer is libertarian municipalism.
Eliminate the political class by not being a Platonic Republic but an Athenian Direct Democracy

>>11700374
>>11700406
Check out some of these and TELL me it isn't what you are after:

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/41282052-the-next-revolution-popular-assemblies-and-the-promise-of-direct-democr

>>11700415
I just want my gouk city councilman read and respond to my email without sending me a form letter.

just my luck my email is ringringlingling, he probably thinks I'm a racist

>>11700433
you ever notice other races are WAY more secretive with their racial epithets?

>>11700436
It makes me think that the shit they call us whites must be REALLY offensive.

>>11700244
>Why do the extreme ends of both political spectrum's result in dictatorships?
Are you sure about this? You should prove your thesis. I'd say this is a category error caused by capitalist status quo propaganda. Most "left wing" governments you would think to label that are revolutionary governments (which already trends towards autocracy) that happened in the third world where there is no tradition of democratic institutions. If "left-wing" government exists in Scandinavia you don't call it left wing. People act like it's weird the USSR wasn't a democracy, but Russia was never a democracy. Ever. Not under the Czar, not under the USSR, and not now.

Democracy is actually pretty rare. Basically only "the West" and parts of East Asia have ever had sort of democracy. And that's assuming western democracies (the strongest of democracies) are even really that democratic. There is a strong argument that the USA does not really respond to public opinion, but rather exclusively answers to a moneyed donor class.

What is interesting though is that right-wing capitalist dictatorships have tended to decay into sort of democracies whereas "left-wing" dictatorships do not. South Korea eventually overthrew its dictatorship in the 80s and implemented a parliament. See also: Taiwan, Chile, Francoist Spain. Even as a socialist I'd say this seems to indicate that there is something about pro-capitalist governments that biases them towards "democratic" institutions.

Maybe I've played too much CK II but even proto-capitalist merchant dominated governments like Venice trended towards republican oligarchy. Which is interesting.

Assuming wealth is the power behind the throne, which I do, I'd say in parliaments and etc. better represent the interests of wealthy elites compared to any other popular form of government. So they push for it when they can. An autocratic state might end up with a mind of its own in competition with business elites. Fractured competitive governments can be bribed/ingratiated to various wealthy donors.

>>11700262
the most brainlet quote I've seen in a long time
>>11700244
>why isn't ideology like natural sciences buwaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!! it's a letter spoook!!!!
No. Clue.

grow up. left/right dichotomy never existed outside the plebeian perspective. are you guys under 18 or what? have yuo guys opened a book in your life? for fucks sake. do we really have to share a board with literal morons who buy whatever new political propaganda was fed to you

Why wouldn't they? They're both ideologically driven.

>>11702085
What makes you think that?

>>11700244
>Your brain on zizekian post-modernism with a side of centrist hindsight
Politics is not what you think it is and you need to stop being afraid of it.

>Why do the extreme ends of both political spectrum's result in dictatorships?
They don't. I can be an extreme liberal right winger. My Utopia doesn't have to end up in dictatorship just because the state doesn't exist or is very limited to only protecting my rights.

>How are they in any way opposed?
Depends. They are opposed in all ways and sometimes, only sometimes, intertwined through some ways but not all.

>The only difference I can see is that a left wing dictatorship allows you to name your successor, while a right wing dictatorship is hereditary.
A right wing dictatorship doesn't have to be hereditary at all, a dictator can be appointed through meritocratic or religious terms.

>Neither strictly adheres to any sort of economic policy, both make unsubstantiated claims to abstract principles that are diametrically opposed to their actions in practice.
Yes they do. Liberal Economies are right wing, planned ones are left wing and authoritarian state sponsored economies are centrist authoritarian while Free Trade is liberal right and forced abolishion of ownership is liberal left.

>As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be ANY clear distinction between right and left ideology, they merely serve as a hatrack for whatever contentious issue seems prevalent at the time, often switching back and forth at the drop of a hat.
The only ideology that switches between sides frequently is Synarchism. Most ideologies only develop slowly or not at all. You're thinking of political parties or politicians which are not ideologies.

>Is the right and left dichotomy merely a mnemonic device meant to encourage peoples natural tendancy towards factionalism, idolotry and idleness?
No. Humans will divide themselves with or without ideology. There are however ideologies who do seek to impose permanent rule by divideing and conquering the masses but all ideologies don't.

>By promoting principles divorced from practice or consequence, does ideology merely distract us from the inner machinations of governance?
No. Ideology is meant to be Statecraft. Ideology as a "way of life" is a modern invention which has more to do with the gentrification of ideas and consumerism.

reminder that the left/right dispute was originally a conflict between the liberal bourgeois (left) and the monarchists (right)

nowadays the concept of "left/right" has completely lost its meaning and is actually something artificially fabricated by marxists


stop looking at politcs in terms of "left and right" and instead use parameters like individualism/coletivism (and if thats important for you, just know that both left and right are coletivists)

>>11702085
this

reminder that the left/right dispute was originally a conflict between the liberal bourgeois (left) and the monarchists (right)
nowadays the concept of "left/right" has completely lost its meaning and is actually something artificially fabricated by marxists

stop looking at politcs in terms of "left and right" and instead use parameters like individualism/coletivism (and if thats important for you, just know that both left and right are coletivists)

>>11700244
you're conflating a couple of things.
The political compass idea isn't perfect, but at least it separates things out a little more clearly.

>>11702212

>>11700244
Democracies are simply dictatorships where the plebs are provided the illusion of the vote. This claim isn't very hard to substantiate either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

There's no getting around dictatorships. Just pick yer poison.

>>11702217
>Anarcho-communism

please shift-delete this image?

>>11702232
Are you saying such a thing cannot exist
(in which case I don't have the time or the energy for you right now)
or that you wouldn't have used that exact term there? I only used it to draw a clear distinction from anarcho-capitalism.

>>11702202
based. you just raised the collective IQ of this board several points with this post

>Politics is not what you think it is and you need to stop being afraid of it.
i want to hear more. what is politics?

>>11702248
how can you maximize the individual (libertarian) and maximize cooperation (communism) at the same time?

>>11702274
respect, dialog, maturity.
You notice that these aren't attributes of the political structure or system. These can't be influenced by changing policy.
So a political philosopher scoffs at them. This is the talk of poor utopians, who will sit around waiting for the "new socialist man" forever.
But to the anarchists the disagreement is absolutely symmetrical: Those philosophers will sit around forever waiting for the perfect arrangement of laws and institutions, checks and balances or any other artifice that will yield the perfect human order. In reality all of these authoritarian systems, by treating people like dogs who must be muzzled by the rule of some government or the hegemony of money, will perpetually maintain this stunted level of social development.
Even imperialists understand that when democracy is brought to a new country, it takes many generations for the people to adapt to the new system. Political independence must be learned in practice.

>>11702433
>the perfect arrangement of laws and institutions, checks and balances or any other artifice that will yield the perfect human order.

this is social engenieering
you can achieve simple anarcho-capitalism principles with basic ethics

and if you still think this is an utopia, just remember that someday we might be able to decentralize everything and live in a cypherpunk reality. All we need is technology

>>11702478
>with basic ethics
nothing basic about ethics.
The history of capitalism is the history of the bar being pulled lower and lower.
No one can afford to be more scrupulous than the least scrupulous player in the game while remaining competitive.
So anytime the bar is lower, it never comes back up.
>All we need is technology
In the same vein of "guns don't kill people", technology doesn't solve problems. Well intentioned, mature individuals solve problems.

>>11700346
Lovely

>>11700244

>>11702255
>based. you just raised the collective IQ of this board several points with this post
Thanks. That was my thought all along. Your reading comprehension is amazing by the way!
>i want to hear more. what is politics?
Politics is exactly the same thing as philosophy. Literally the same thing. It doesn't even exist. Just like philosophy. So we should really stop like dividing ourselves like you know? Totally dude.

>>11700244
>>11700274
>>11700294
>>11702085
>>11702210
>>11702603
This is by far the dumbest board.

>>11700327
read juliette by de sade all the way through and you'll feel uncomfortable if you consider the full ramifications of what the characters argue in the lecture sections

>>11700354
just out of curiosity, have you ever actually tried to contact your representative directly? and in a non-mentally ill fashion?

>>11700244
Black and reddit.

>>11702210
You started out great, but then.
MEIN GOTT!

>>11700354
>>11704407
>>11700354

To be fair, your representative isn't necessarily who has the real power. Personally i think a lot of the public figures are just that, puppets for the masses who are used as pawns in a greater game by forces that are not up for election

>>11704092
you should've posted a boomer picture instead old man virgin centrist boomer cuck cringe bluepilled SAD do not reply to this

>>11700244
>when you use deconstruction to dissect everything into nothing so you can sound like a smart hipster
You literally nitpicked small things about ideology that you don't like and focused on absolutely nothing of value. Well done!