@ Doomhammer
Doomhammer wrote:This is a society so engrossed in itself, so convinced of its superiority that it cannot accept change. Neither its raison d'etre, nor its means, is amenable to critique.
This reminds me of the critical theory of the philosophical School of Frankfurt, and notably the works of Herbert Marcuse. He portrayed the modern citizen as a one dimensional man, who is completely assimilated and unable to obtain a self-assuredness. The true human desires are sublimed into consumerism. The critical theory is attractive for the radical left, because she is a call to criticize everything. Moreover, since she is just a story, she can never be refuted. Either you are a believer, or not. I have stopped studying the works of the critical theorists already a decade ago, since they are not credible, and do not convince me. Besides, it is inapt for making policy recommendations.
Doomhammer wrote:The situation is thus: you have two political parties who are more or less the same. Apart from some radical thinkers, they differ only on more cosmetic issues.
Obviously, this is not true. Indeed, neither party wants to overturn the system, and by the way, neither do the common people. But the devil is in the detail. Think for instance about health care.
Doomhammer wrote:Either US will overextend and lose its empire, there will be widespread societal backlash, or there will be some kind of environmental disaster, or a combination of these.
A sound policy must preferably be cumulative. Unfortunately, the radical left has a sinister desire to smash the system. When they lack the power, they invent tendencies, which must lead to an apocalypse. This approach was perfected in the former Soviet union, and became a source of humour there. For instance, a Leninist teacher tells: "America is in decay. The unemployment is a disaster, people are hungry, and the blacks are murdered. On the other hand, the Soviet Union prospers, and she will soon overtake America".
Doomhammer wrote:In most of the developing world, and even to an extent in Europe, it is possible to at least envision alternative orders and form a political platform, however irrelevant.
I can think of two alternatives, indeed irrelevant. One is democratic socialism, which failed definitely in the 80s. The Third way could be a new social-democratical paradigm, but it is evidently not socialism. In fact it is affiliated to the policy of the American New Democrats. The other alternative is the paradigm of the international movement against globalization, such as the social fora, a decade ago. Her main ideologists are perhaps Hardt and Negri, with their empire-and-multitude philosophy. However, imho they advocate simply anarchism, and that is not a serious option. Other protagonists (which I have not read) are Chomsky, Wallerstein, and Bello. Recently I tried to read a book of David Harvey, but I found it utterly boring, and did not finish it (I hope that this remark is not offensive).
It is easy to criticize the present system. However, it is much more difficult to invent a better one. For instance, a century ago socialism seemed a brilliant idea, at least on paper. Unfortunately, such theoretical alternatives have their own disadvantages, and these surface only after the implementation of the new system. Thus the praised socialism turned out to be a practical disaster, which has hurt the lives of generations. Even the
democratic socialism in western Europe was a continuous source of unacceptable problems.
Snoopy: Here's the WWI flying ace posing beside his sopwith camel. My mission is to seek out the Red Baron, and to bring him down! Contact!
- By Potemkin
- By MistyTiger
- By wat0n