Political Realism Theories

[Anonymous No.16368825]

The entirety of political philosophy is built on a fallacy: that there is a system that actually "works", that all we need to do is find it. You can forgive Plato, Rousseau and Locke for being naive, but it's weird that contemporary authors are still writing speculative theories on the "perfect" political ideology while ignoring everything we know about human behaviour.

The truth is, all political systems fail when you're working with humans, their differences and their flaws. People have fundamentally different views which cannot be reconciled. So fucking tired of "new versions" of Marxism or Capitalism which aim to solve this or that. Fuck off.

Are there any political works that actually incorporate reality in their theories?

[Anonymous No.16368839]

>>16368825
Capitalist realism

[Anonymous No.16368840]

Already heard about this by the way.

[Anonymous No.16368853]

>>16368825
>The entirety of political philosophy is built on a fallacy: that there is a system that actually "works", that all we need to do is find it.
Not true by the way

[Anonymous No.16368855]

>People have fundamentally different views which cannot be reconciled
Most people have the same wants and needs, there will always be a minority of people who are unhappy and resort to terrorism. We can literally just kill people who pose a threat to society and the human race.

[Anonymous No.16368866]

>>16368855
This.

[Anonymous No.16368877]

>>16368825
>The entirety of political philosophy is built on a fallacy: that there is a system that actually "works"

Not Philosophical Conservatism, it's literally built on looking at what has worked on what has worked over a long period of time, and implementing or maintaining it.

Source:

Conservatism: An Invitation To The Great Tradition By Roger Scruton

A Political Philosophy: Arguments for Conservatism By Roger Scruton

Probably the only non-Utopian or experimental political philosophy that I've come across.

[Anonymous No.16368887]

>>16368877
Obviously OP doesn't read political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16368889]

>>16368825

>The entirety of political philosophy is built on a fallacy: that there is a system that actually "works", that all we need to do is find it.

Not Philosophical Conservatism, it's literally built on looking at what has worked on what has worked over a long period of time, and implementing or maintaining it.

Source:

Conservatism: An Invitation To The Great Tradition By Roger Scruton

A Political Philosophy: Arguments for Conservatism By Roger Scruton

Probably the only non-Utopian or experimental political philosophy that I've come across.

[Anonymous No.16368903]

>>16368825

>The entirety of political philosophy is built on a fallacy: that there is a system that actually "works", that all we need to do is find it.

Not Philosophical Conservatism, it's literally built on looking at what has worked, or what has worked over a long period of time.

Source:

Conservatism: An Invitation To The Great Tradition By Roger Scruton

A Political Philosophy: Arguments for Conservatism By Roger Scruton

Probably the only non-Utopian or experimental political philosophy that I've come across.

[Anonymous No.16368907]

>>16368825
differences in opinions keep the whole stew delicious.
But you gotta have a baseline presupposition that everyone agrees with so that you truly know what your end goal is
It used to be God
Now it's human advancement which nobody can ever agree on.

[Anonymous No.16368922]

>>16368825
>there is a system that actually "works"
>People have fundamentally different views which cannot be reconciled.
>Are there any political works that actually incorporate reality in their theories?

You're thinking about it the wrong way, political philosophy shouldn't be seeking the one that works best. All political systems fail, so its about finding one that fails the least. We should aim for the least terrible and go from there. Democracy and capitalism have filled that demand, simply because every other alternative has proven to be far worse. It's the only one that can reasonably accommodate irreconcilable views in a single society, but it's also starting to show its age.

[Anonymous No.16369677]

>>16368855
>>16368866
Wrong. Why do you think people are so divided? Why are there riots in the US right now, why is there conflict in every nation over race, gender, views etc?

>>16368903
Scruton is dreary.

[Anonymous No.16369702]

>>16368922
>its about finding one that fails the least.
That's something worth doing, but it's a job for economists, sociologists etc. What concerns political philosophy is constructing a system with ideal rights, freedoms, and government, which cannot possibly be formulated in a way to please everyone. Nobody I've read has admitted this, instead opting to find this ideal state.

[Anonymous No.16369731]

Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16369747]

>murderous ideology

[Anonymous No.16369762]

>>16368825
>Are there any political works that actually incorporate reality in their theories?
Marx, Debord and Kaczynski do, yes.

Now you're clearly not interested in reading actual radical works so just pick whatever your fragmented self identifies with.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16369773]

>>16368825
>centralized state authoritarian capitalism by xenophobic imperialists
>centralized state authoritarian capitalism by internationalists


> The truth is, all political systems fail when you're working with humans, their differences and their flaws.
What’s wrong is we’re working with small groups of elitists. The solution has always been direct democratic controls
>those only work on a small scale
Exactly.
So yeah, there are real political theories for you. Under the banner of anarchism or libertarian socialism

[Anonymous No.16369801]

>>16369762
I actually read Kaczynski recently and enjoyed it a ton. I have not read Debort but I have read a ton of Marxist philosophers (I was a Marxist ages 16-23).

[Anonymous No.16369803]

Man with big rock kill others until man with bigger rock kill him.

checkmate justice

[Anonymous No.16369806]

>>16369702

>That's something worth doing, but it's a job for economists, sociologists etc

The scientific method/math can only help once foundational values have been established. A key point of political philosophy is establishing foundational values for social organization.

Economics IMO is also a terrible 'science'. The global meltdown of 07/08 only produced approx 20 trained economists on public record who predicted it. Out of literally thousands of trained and working economists. That shows just how terrible the 'science' of economists are, that they couldn't collectively predict a global economic meltdown.

Regardless;

Science/math can't tell us what we ought to value/do.

Despite saying that, you might like

Happiness: Lessons from a New Science By Richard Layard

Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others James Gilligan.

[Anonymous No.16369821]

>>16369806
That's because economics is in its infancy. Never understood these "economics isn't a science, it's wrong!" views. Yeah it has its flaws but it's improving. Chemistry was pretty bad at some point too... are we just going to abandon the whole project of economics because right now our paradigm is failing?

[Anonymous No.16369848]

>>16369801
Marxists philosophers exist to neuter Marx and his radicality. Early Marx has been craftily hidden in the undergrounds of universities. Marxism is the institutionalization of Marx.

Of course the three authors I've mentionned are human, therefore they are not prophets and are sometimes (often) wrong. Only Christ is truly radical.

[Anonymous No.16369894]

>>16369806
Economy is false consciousness. Marx predicted every crisis, but not narcissistically as every intellectual dream to do, but in a more general asbtract way. Anyone who profits from being right is a fraud, an agent of capital, an alienated faggot, a schizophrenic half-human. Anyone who claims to be something other than simply being is a charlatan, a neurotic, a domesticated asset.

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall predicts every restructuration of capital. Kaczynski's brilliant analysis of the availability of advanced technology predicts the collapse of industrial society.

[Anonymous No.16369929]

Also Debord predicted that terrorism is essentialy state-sponsored, as part of crisis capitalism under real subsumption. He did so in an age where terrorism was latent. One must not comprehend this claim as "conspirationist", since belief in conspiracies is itself false consciousness. Conspiracies don't make history, it is History that makes conspiracies. This is a radical truth - one that is prohibited by both liberalism and conspirationism (the real political divide of our age)

[Anonymous No.16369930]

>>16368903
>looking at what has worked
>scruton
If you want political history on "what has worked" you ought to be reading serious historical works about the minutiae of economic and foreign policy, not cultural apologia

[Anonymous No.16369932]

>>16369894
you sound like a teenager no offence

[Anonymous No.16369940]

>>16369821
>are we just going to abandon the whole project of economics because right now our paradigm is failing?

I didn't say to abandon it, I would caution against building a political philosophy based around economics, like some people propose.

Those 20 or so economists who publicly predicted the 07/08 meltdown have radically different views in regards to economics, in some areas.

It's another reason why I believe that philosophy needs to be included when it comes to examining political systems.

[Anonymous No.16369941]

>>16369932
no offence taken

[Anonymous No.16369965]

The answer you are looking for is Aristotle
Reading his analysis of political systems feels like he is writing today if you switch the names
Also
>Plato
>Naive
Plato was weird, I wouldn't call him naive
He was very cynical and perceptive about political change and how the existing political systems work, he was also conscious that his ideal polity was impossible to actualise (which is hard to contend with his adventures in Sicily though it could be argued that he was going there as a more general tutor rather than with the full intent of enacting his polity)

[Anonymous No.16369976]

>>16369930

That leads to the exact same issue that I had before... Studying history can only tell us what happened, not what we ought to value or how we 'should' organize.

In regards to 'what has worked' within philosophical Conservatism, it's not simply looking coldly pragmatically at history. There are value judgement made, and theories of human nature asserted.

Hunter-Gatherer societies 'worked. But I don't want to return to those conditions, and nor do most people.

[Anonymous No.16369997]

>>16369940
This stuff is already incorporated into modern theories (Taleb's is the most well known even outside of econs).

[Anonymous No.16370008]

>>16369997

What stuff?

And what theories?

[Anonymous No.16370027]

>>16368825
Anything that promotes eugenics and wants to take control out of the hands of the masses (or rather, the rats that sell them lies.)

[Anonymous No.16370037]

>>16368825
There is no perfect ideology, but the statesman of realpolitik should how to manipulate the political climate no matter the ruling ideology of his day. A state is only a state in relation to other states, for this reason foreign affairs should be his primary concern. Foreign policy drives domestic policy. External threats demand a strong state security and gives a feeling of community and sense of direction to its citizens. It is a curious thing that a sick man has more vitality than a healthy man; his ailment provides to him stronger mental fortitude, and oftentimes physical injuries such as a broken bone heal stronger than before being broken. The state is an organism that grows stronger from negative external stimuli, a state without enemies atrophies and dies. This is why the USA is falling apart today, it has had no major enemies for 30 years, and no equal enemies for 70 years. A theorist might say democracy is bad, but a realist looks at how wildly successful American democracy has been over the last 250 years.

[Anonymous No.16370076]

>>16370037
>This is why the USA is falling apart today, it has had no major enemies for 30 years, and no equal enemies for 70 years
Well I haven't heard this before... however, most countries have opponents and still fail, while others (North Europe) haven't been at war for decades and are doing fine.

[Anonymous No.16370112]

>>16370076
What is your criteria for "doing fine"? They have successful economies but where is their sense of community and camaraderie? Hordes of immigrants invade their streets and either they don't care or are too scared to foresee the consequences that Enoch Powell sacrificed his career to warn Europe about.

[Anonymous No.16370127]

>>16370112
I was talking about the nations with closed borders, not Sweden lol.

[Anonymous No.16370156]

Thucydides, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, etc. seems to be what you're looking for. If you want to understand the use of building ideal systems knowing that they aren't possible read Strauss.

[Anonymous No.16370216]

>>16368840
An heroed, bullycided by twitter trannies. Look like my man answered his own questiom there

[Anonymous No.16370222]

>>16370127
Media blows this out of the water, they are mostly kept in their immigrant suburbs where they murder and rob eachother.

[Anonymous No.16370941]

In every system that works society will eventually outgrow said system. It's always a temporary solution.

[Anonymous No.16370950]

>>16368855
>select for ideologically empty cattle
>bad system persists forever
>mankind is destroyed
How smart of you, neolib

[Anonymous No.16370974]

>>16368825
Are you clinically retarded? There's no perfect way to fish, therefore one way can't be more effective than another?

>everything we know about human behaviour
By your retarded logic, since our knowledge of human behavior is imperfect, we can't use any of it.

[Anonymous No.16371020]

>>16369773
Any person with a leader mentality will crash and burn this system, also, how the hell are you gonna get there.

[Anonymous No.16371044]

>>16370974
Your reading comprehension is gonna make it very hard for me to speak to you. You're the only one having trouble here. Go and whine somewhere else and take your bitch attitude with you.

[Anonymous No.16371127]

>>16371044
Not an argument, brainlet. Your OP was a display of immense idiocy.

[Anonymous No.16371147]

>>16371127
>Not an argument
Well done. At least your literacy is good enough to understand that. :)

[Anonymous No.16371155]

>>16371147
Thanks for agreeing that your OP was sheer retardation founded on an elementary logical fallacy.

[Anonymous No.16371172]

>>16371155
Wow I'm so impressed by your rational logical brain!

[Anonymous No.16371210]

>>16371172
You're the one who posted a new thread on political philosophy, anon. You may not like it, but it's going to involve reasoning. Cope.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16371317]

>>16371020
First it’s warlordism now it’s dudes too charismatic to not be elected high holy leader.
Keeping it a series of direct democracies and not any kind of representative democracy, or council of elders etc. should be key enough. Not Athenian in the least, but nothing less than full direct democracy.
What if Jesus himself was reincarnated and took a whole group of ... what, fools who decided to remain catholic and hierarchal? Okay, that one place puts their king of heaven on their throne. He either dies 80 years later or sooner if he decides to invade a neighboring region. The sheer numbers of free people in control of their basic desire to remain free would overwhelm such a cult.

How to get there? Spread the word that we can do this and that we have to do this or else many species including humans will go extinct. You got any strategies on how to do this faster, go for it.

[Anonymous No.16371345]

>>16371210
>>16371147

I wouldn't call it a novel rendition of philopolitical concepts, anon. You are giving OP too much credit. It's hardly a scrupulous assessment of what OP has purported to be true... He is not only wrong, but he is also not EVEN wrong... it seems to me to be casual observations between human behavior and the system of law and order, in the vein of group dynamics and social structure, and is improperly and absurdly conflated and rife with inflations and reductions.
>Philopoli systems are built on a fallacy: that there is a system that actually works.
The system doesn't have to be singular and unilateral. When you evoke the word "system" and then claim that there is no "perfect" system you are showing your own naivety. We can still assume there to be an equilibrium between constituent branches equating in a more complex system that functions properly, i.e., we can take into account the needs and wants of individuals and extrapolate it across the entire overarching system. This is just one example. The argument is riddled with holes in the logic from the outset.
>the truth is, all political systems fail when you're working with humans
see above.

[Anonymous No.16371346]

>>16369677
>Why do you think people are so divided? Why are there riots in the US right now,
Because rich people dont like the current man in power and want to make him seem like an unstable leader so they foment outrage in the media to stir up uneducated and violent children and thugs

[Anonymous No.16371347]

>>16369773
>16369773
if the solution was democratic controls there would be no elite because that would imply the majority had the collective responsibility to construct a society that would survive

[Anonymous No.16371371]

>>16369677
>Why do you think people are so divided? Why are there riots in the US right now, why is there conflict in every nation over race, gender, views etc?

Their needs have been met and they're suffering Don Quixote syndrome.

[Anonymous No.16371372]

>>16371345
OP is basically saying that since no perfect scientific theory will ever exist, there is no such thing as science. He has an IQ of about 72.

[Anonymous No.16371384]

>>16371345
>I wouldn't call it a novel rendition of philopolitical concepts, anon.
I never said it was. It's about as "novel" as the theory that 2+2=5. What I said is that the OP posted a new thread, which is true by definition. Low-IQ types like the OP are always better off lurking.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16372864]

>>16371347
So you’re saying if it worked it would already be working.

/lit/ is a fishery. Brains no bigger than a tuna’s