Jeremy Seabrook (Guardian): We dodged the real issue

[aneerkoinos]

"It is often claimed that electoral apathy in the western democracies comes from the absence of any big issue separating mainstream parties. But no such consensus exists globally. Western countries may shrink from acknowledging it, but the world is in the grip of an epic confrontation between those who believe in the capacity of capitalism to bring plenty, peace and progress to all humanity, and those equally convinced that only disengagement from its destructive dynamic offers the hope of planetary survival.

The ideological divide cuts through traditional political allegiances. On one side are the supporters of corporate interests, unreconstructed socialists and many "progressives". They point to the conquest of disease, increasing longevity, the comforts of life extended to more people than ever before. On the other are the anti-globalisers, as well as an unknown number of the world's poor, who ask only for sufficiency and security. They have some uncomfortable allies, particularly traditionalists whose faith forbids humanity to defy God by interfering with the integrity of creation. In defence of their position, they cite the sicknesses of excess, the contamination of the resource base, and the baleful impact of industrialism upon climate, ecosystems and biodiversity.

In the first view, it is unthinkable that the onward march of capitalism should be halted; in the second, inadmissible that the ravages of globalism should continue unchecked. It is the exclusion of this most significant ideological fissure of the age from our politics which makes our elections so sterile."

Much more:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477666,00.html

Seldom was truer words spoken.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

1. I have problems with his assessment of the issue

The ideological conflict between capitalism and socialism\communism has been going on for over a hundred years. Is it a big conflict? Absolutely, for people like you and me maybe. Is it a big deal for your average voted. Not really. These are not people who have read Capitol, or the Communist Manifesto, or Adam Smith. For them big issues are, how high are my taxes, what is my health insurance going to cost? Am I safe from criminals.

I have found it humorous in the flap over the Pledge recently that the reason the phrase "Under God" was inserted in the first place, in the mid-fifty's, is that it was a rallying point for government to sell to the people as to what the difference was between us and the communist. We believe in God, they don't. Reduces to 10 second sound bits real well.

But did the country every engage in meaningful debate as to the ideological, economic, and social distinctions between the two. I don't think so.

[orwell]

2. Another Critique

My pet peeve is the acceptance of the Hegelian or Manichean frame in which these political, economic, and social debates are placed. In some respect, the very structure of debate, as opposed to the building of consensus, reinforces the right/wrong, win/lose worldview of the authoritarian.

None of this is a black and white issue as the polarizers would want us to believe. In fact, by accepting the frame of polarization, we hand the issue over to the authoritarians before a word is spoken.

The discussion, first and foremost, should be over the fundamental frame itself. Is the world simplistic or complex? Is it ordered or chaotic?

Accumulated experiential knowledge, which is now "conveniently" under attack, seems to imply that reality is not only extremely complex but chaotic. Not only that, since relativity and uncertainty entered the equation in the early 1900's, we must question even the experiential data itself.

This is what is under attack by the Authoritarians, currently ably represented by the structure of the modern extra-national corporation.

In many respects, they are no different from the supposed "evil communism" to which they claim to be morally superior.

But to understand that would be to break free of the frame in the first place.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

3. Is there really a good answer?

"My pet peeve is the acceptance of the Hegelian or Manichean frame in which these political, economic, and social debates are placed. In some respect, the very structure of debate, as opposed to the building of consensus, reinforces the right/wrong, win/lose worldview of the authoritarian"

In the real world you are probably correct as whatever authority currently exists has an interest in preserving the status quo. For me though, when I talk about debate the goal is always to arrive at truth. However, I am probably a simpleton and\or hopelessly idealistic.

I suppose that is the basic flaw of politics in itself as in large part politics is all about lying. One can have the best ideas in the world about how we should govern ourselves, but the fact remains that one still has to get themselves elected.

Politicians do not get themselves elected by factual persuasion and truth. They get themselves elected by catering to peoples preconceived world views and by convincing them that if you vote for me, I will see that world view is maintained.

[aneerkoinos]

6. Democracy

Is there possibility of democratic system other than our current corrupt representative systems that demand lying, political system that would encouridge dialogue in search of truth?

I think there is, I can imagine few.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

8. And perhaps there is, I'm sure we need something better

But in the end they are still just systems of human conception, and therefore have flaws.

[orwell]

9. Deep Ecology

Politics in its fundamental form is the formation of policy.

What I am ranting against is the framing of this formation as a dialectic, either/or proposition. Such notions fit the mold of the authoritarian. I recognize the attractive force of simplicity. It would be nice if the world would accommodate my own prejudices and closed mind.

But it never does. It can't. It exists beyond my observation/interpretation.

You are quite right. Modern politics has become a marketing exercise. Lying if you will. It fundamentally relies on fear as that is a most exploitable, reliable emotion. But emotion generally breeds poor policy. Whatever politicians do is beyond my sphere of influence.

I am just another bozo at a keyboard, lashing out into the void. In the end, the world will progress beyond marketing to understanding, deep ecology if you will, or we will perish.

Thanks for the response.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

13. Politics is:

Politicss in its fundamental form is the formation of policy.”

That and an institution of civilized organized warfare, in that we can settle our differences there as opposed to going to a lock and load mode and settling our differences in the street. So in that regards it is a good thing, albeitt a necessary thing.

“What I am ranting against is the framing of this formation as a dialectic, either/or proposition. Such notions fit the mold of the authoritarian.”

I too many times share the same frustration as you do with that fact. However, the paradoxical thing about it is that humans, by there basic construction, are only capable of binary reasoning, i.e. all reasoning ultimately breaks down to binary. Something I thoroughly got in touch with years ago when I first starting studying programming, conditional branching, and logic gates that computers utilize.

However, we are capable, through conditional branching, to build more complex reasoning models to evaluate the world (reality) around us. While some of us elect to do such, some don’t, which it can be argued they don’t because it is after all a lot of work.

“I recognize the attractive force of simplicity.”

It can be quite seductive.

“ It would be nice if the world would accommodate my own prejudices and closed mind.”

LOL, Yeah, damm, ain’t that a bitch. Don’t they know I only have their best interest at heart?

“You are quite right. Modern politics has become a marketing exercise”

Yes, and this is an example where technology does us more damage than good. Nevertheless, politicians have been converted to just another marketable commodity, no different than ice cream, soap, or cosmetics. Just another example of the depravity of consumerism.

“It fundamentally relies on fear as that is a most exploitable, reliable emotion.”

True, however this has been true in politics for millennium. The Romans, who developed rhetoric to an art, empire, in large part, was built around the model of fear as a tool to motivate the masses.

“But emotion generally breeds poor policy.”

While I would generally tend to agree with that statement, again Roman history tells us that they built an empire, which lasted for a century around that model. Therefore, history would seem to contradict us both, although I like to think it doesn’t.

“I am just another bozo at a keyboard, lashing out into the void”

You and me both bud. Just trying to get it to all to make sense in one way or another. I guess it beats throwing rocks at cars.

“In the end, the world will progress beyond marketing to understanding, deep ecology if you will, or we will perish.”

For me that is the interesting thing about the times we live in. After many years of studying history, politics, psychology, and a host of other subjects, I am convinced that we live in a time where humanity is on the brink of a major upheaval of society. Not just in our own country but worldwide, as it appears to me that our institutions are breaking down.

However, such upheavals usually result in, or are the product of catastrophic events. It is always in the back of my mind that one of the core concepts of the PNAC is the idea of a winnable nuclear war.

Such upheaval, as I see it, will result in one of two things, a return to another dark ages, or the beginning of a new age of enlightenment, so while the current times we live in are on the one hand frightening, they are at the same time very exciting. At least for me it is, as I see it as an opportunity to witness a truly major event in the history of mankind. That is assuming I live long enough to fully witness it.

At any rate, thanks for giving me a soapbox to rant on, the whole point of spending my time posting on blogs is not so much to persuade others, although that is nice when it happens no matter how infrequently, LOL. But it is an exercise for me, which helps to more clearly develop my own thoughts.

[aneerkoinos]

5. Framing

Been listening to Dean, eh? ;)

I don't mind a good debate, but I enjoy dialogue better, establishing some common ground, common frame (even if for arguments sake) and building chains of deduction from there.

If you seach for fundamental frame, you must go much deeper than that. What is the nature of causality? Time? What is logic, are either/or questions meaningfull and if, when so? Why not both/and? What is the order of order and chaos? Are there other orders beside the very subjective sliding scale from order to chaos? What is the nature of creativity?

On this level of being we have only limited time, so decisions about what lever of framing we start have to be contrasted against that. I suggest we frame ourselves as an empirical test of those questions, empirical in the sense that if we hope to continue our quest for the ever escaping Graal of the Ultimate Frame, by the looks of it we must first beat ourselves in the game of evolution and learn to survive. Whaddayasay?

[orwell]

10. Silenced in Being

Actually I haven't. But I think the guy was shafted in the primaries by a hit squad that feared the threat that he presented to the establishment structure of the political status quo.

Why not both/and indeed. At the very least you ask the question. Many questions. All valid. All creative.

We all view the world from a frame. Mine is the multiverse of boundless possibilities. Not the big bang, directional, expanding and contracting in the dialectic, bounded by some unseen hand (God?/Perception of God?) but rather constantly unfolding wonder, multi-dimensional, multi-temporal, maximum novelty.

Beat ourselves indeed. In the end, that is the true test. To live beyond fear - our chains loosed, our hearts free, our treacherous ego/minds silenced in the ecstasy of being.

Thanks for the response.

[aneerkoinos]

11. We frame the same

Mine's kinda Buddhist post-Quantum theory frame, too. :)

[aneerkoinos]

4. What problems?

I don't see what are your problems with the article.

The point was that really important stuff don't enter the political debate, and amusingly, you evaded too and went into God-rant! :)

Academic discussion about Marx and Smith has it's merits, but that is not the most important stuff. What is?

I think enviroment and natural limits of material growth, population problem and Earths carrying capacity, and what happens to growth based economies when enviromental limits, such as oil production capacity, have been met?

On what values do we base our societies after that (which is about now), "takers keepers, sod of have-nots!" or "Liberty, Egality and Brotherhood"?

If latter, how do we put human creativity and remaining resources best in the service of common good? What is the possibility of moving from material (cultural) evolution towards more spiritual evolution?

For me these questions give the answer that, in the words of Hugo Frias Chavez, we must reinvent socialism for the 21st century, because for me, father of two, the really important stuff is: the survival of human civilization, living with dignity and compassion.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

7. And you may think all of that is important, as I'm sure you do

But the average voter doesn't get that esoteric.

And where do you come up with god rant in my post?

[aneerkoinos]

12. Averadge voter?

Who'se that, never met the guy? IMO he (aka short termist political "realism"/long-medium termist suicidalism) does not form a dialectic in the framing I attempted:

I don't think 'esoteric' describes best my previous post, I't was quite transparent attempt to analyse the situation of humanity, something to be agreed or disagreed and discussed rationally. You choose not to, which is perfectly OK.

This time I didn't go into the esoteric really really important and fun stuff. As for god rant, you made a pass at the current US frame of religo-political dialectic.