The Uses of Radicalism

The Uses of Radicalism
jamalrob
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Aug 05, 2010
Location: Basse-Normandie

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 3520
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 5, 2011 - 6:51 AM:

Benkei wrote:
Does he mean artefact as in "man made"?

Yes. "Societies have built laws, institutions and forms of collective discipline precisely in order that the individual can live freely."
jamalrob
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Aug 05, 2010
Location: Basse-Normandie

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 3520
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 5, 2011 - 7:49 AM:

What is the Marxist position? First of all, class conflict is the fundamental motor of change, and from this (classical or orthodox) point of view I suppose that the extent of the radicalism of an individual or group (class) must be a function of their class consciousness; and the present lack of political radicalism would then be seen as owing to widespread false consciousness, wherein real social relations are obscured. How far does this theory work in today's world?
Benkei
PF Addict

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004

Total Topics: 171
Total Posts: 1245
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 5, 2011 - 8:14 AM:

jamalrob wrote:
On terminology I'll side roughly with @ssu. By radicalism I mean pretty much what is described on the Wikipedia page for political radicalism. Or do you have a fundamental objection to this, @Benkei? I have to say I'm a bit confused by your post #16. Scruton is anti-radical through-and-through, and I'm not sure I can accept your idiosyncratic usage after all. smiling face


No, I don't have a fundamental objection other than that I don't know what word to then use to convey my meaning. Radicalism simply leans towards meaning "extremism" nowadays. Fundamentalism is value laden and therefore also doesn't work. Hence the idea of radixism.

I considered essentialism but in philosophy that has different problems although, perhaps, strictly for political philosophy it could be used.

There's no need to follow my usage obviously as long as you understand my posts in the light of a different meaning than is generally accorded to the word radicalism.
tolstoy
impermanent Host
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2011
Location: Earth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 45
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 6, 2011 - 2:23 AM:

benharpo wrote:
Excellent Question

I think radical change for the better is possible. There are a few cases of radical change that didn't go badly at all. For example, the end of apartheid in South Africa.



The end of apartheid was not so great for everyone. I'm not saying that because I'm a racist or anything like that! But if you go to South Africa and see the incredible amount that crime has risen... My neighbors just moved from rural South Africa because it was hardly safe to stand still at a red light without getting robbed. Slave mentalities are criminal mentalities. I think the rapid change from slavery to freedom in the US for blacks is a large deal the blame for why they still have a poverty stricken lifestyle one and a half centuries later. In response the question, rapid change, in my opinion, and observation in history as well as my own lifestyle, is never good.

Edited by Wolfman on Jun 6, 2011 - 7:59 AM. Reason: insufficient grammatical skills or sloppy writing
jamalrob
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Aug 05, 2010
Location: Basse-Normandie

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 3520
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 6, 2011 - 3:11 AM:

Just another load of "I'm not racist but..." garbage, @tolstoy. It is racist.

Do you think that blacks had equal rights and equal opportunities in the US once slavery was abolished? Read some history.

On South Africa, I had no idea of the details so I did a quick Google search. One of the top results (the South African Consulate-General of Los Angeles, which I have no reason to doubt) gives these facts:

Since 1994:

  • The South African government has Built 1.2 million homes. In 1994, two-thirds of South African households owned their own homes. Seven years later, this figure has risen to 77%
  • The government has redistributed more than 2.5 million acres of land
  • Provided running water for 7 million people. Water is now piped into 76% of households, compared to 68% in 1994
  • Provided electricity for 3.5 million. 80% of South African households now have electricity in their homes. In 1994, this figure was only 58%.
  • Real wages and productivity have increased by over 20%
  • Spending on education has increased tremendously. In 1994, the government spent R31,8 billion and by 2000, this figure had risen to R51,1 billion. At 6% of the country’s GDP, the country’s investment in education rates among the highest in the world
  • 23% of South Africans have matric, compared to 14% in 1994. Basic literacy is also up, from 87% to 92%
    Government’s deregulation of the airwaves increased number of radio stations, 90% of the rural population listens to the radio, compared to 79% in 1994.
  • In 1994, 74% of all households had a monthly income of less that R2 499. By 2001, only 62% were still in this category. Higher-income brackets have grown. Households earning a monthly income of R2 500 to R5 999 are up from 16% to 20%, and households that now have a monthly income of over R6 000 are up from 10% to 18%.

Source

The real problem for South Africa is not that some formerly comfortable white folks are suffering from more crime, but that there is still a huge disparity between rich and poor, although it has lessened. And who in their right mind would have imagined that such a radical change in social relations (but not radical enough) would have been smooth sailing? Of course things have got a bit messy in places.

Edited by jamalrob on Jun 6, 2011 - 3:36 AM
tolstoy
impermanent Host
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2011
Location: Earth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 45
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 6, 2011 - 3:53 AM:

jamalrob wrote:
Just another load of "I'm not racist but..." garbage, @tolstoy. It is racist.

Do you think that blacks had equal rights and equal opportunities in the US once slavery was abolished? Read some history.


It is not bullshit i really am not racist at all. I only listen to my neighbors who talk about it all the time and they certainly make it sound like things have gotten worse. City life may have gotten better but these people came straight from the african wilderness where all the big plantations and what not use to be a big part of the economy. Obviously a large deal of those newly unemployed people are going to become brigands where they have no trade skills and farming is no longer profitable to the property owners to continue to run large scale agriculture. Call me what you will,but i know i am not racist the tiniest bit. Im not supporting slavery or segregation or anything like that im only saying radical action is not effective. You said blacks were not given equal rights after slavery was abolished. Your obviously right. But that has nothing to do with it being radical change in the first place if they were given full rights or not. Im saying radical change from being slaves to freemen without proper establishments to insure there welfare led up too how bad off they are today. In no way am i advocating segregation or slavery! Just saying that if it was done properly with due consideration of the effect blacks would not have half the social or economic problems.
jamalrob
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Aug 05, 2010
Location: Basse-Normandie

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 3520
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 6, 2011 - 4:03 AM:

OK ok, you're not racist. Now, I've given you evidence that the radical change of dismantling apartheid was successful. And I've pointed out to you that the abolition of slavery was not radical enough, because segregation and institutional racism lingered on afterwards. In fact, you might say that the lack of welfare provisions that you've pointed out was not a sign that the changes were too radical but that they were simply badly handled, or even - as I say - not radical enough.

But I suppose it depends on how you want to define "radical". Anyway, how should slavery have been phased out gradually?
tolstoy
impermanent Host
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2011
Location: Earth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 45
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 6, 2011 - 4:22 AM:

I am saying it was not handled properly. If it was handled properly i think it would be hard to say it was a radical change.
If it was handled properly everyone would be accounted for. To me a radical change would have to be something spontaneously and ignorantly acted upon which is in the jest of things not handling a situation properly. Both the end of apartheid and the emancipation of blacks in the US I would call a radical change. Had the consideration been put into the emancipation of slaves based on fact and taking into account the needs and culture of the south and not on passionate belief or political reasons to make it look as if you had that passionate belief then a better negotiation could have been worked with southern legislators to insure the cooperation of the majority of reasonable southern folks.
Being radical is lacking practicality and simply leaving the mishaps of your intentions for later consideration.
jamalrob
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Aug 05, 2010
Location: Basse-Normandie

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 3520
#29 - Quote - Permalink
3 of 3 people found this post helpful
Posted Jun 6, 2011 - 4:38 AM:

Alright, that sounds like a reasonable enough Scrutonian position. It seems fantastical though. Given the social backgrounds to these changes, which were marked by fundamental conflicts, I would say that only specifically radical changes could have been successful. You appear to contrast practical, gradual change with passionate impractical radicalism, but this assumes that societies are essentially united and reasonable. They are not: they are riven with conflict, and progress seems often to be necessarily manifested as radical change.

From a modern perspective of relative peace and prosperity, to castigate the people of the past for making their changes too quickly, or for not being reasonable enough, is to speak with the benefit of hindsight; it is to forget that to make any change at all required people to make bold decisions in moments of extreme conflict. In other words, it is not their radicalism which was unrealistic, but your wish that they had gone about things more carefully.

Edited by jamalrob on Jun 6, 2011 - 4:23 PM
jamalrob
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Aug 05, 2010
Location: Basse-Normandie

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 3520
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 6, 2011 - 4:54 AM:

EDIT: @tolstoy, this post is a reply to the post of yours that has disappeared

Thanks @tolstoy. By "Scrutonian" I mean pertaining to Roger Scruton's political philosophy. I didn't want to say "conservative" in case you got the wrong idea (Scruton is not a Reagan/Thatcher/Bush/Free market-worshipping/neoconservative type of chap). This thread was prompted by Scruton's ideas (check out the OP).

Tolstoy was a bit of an anarchist, wasn't he? I have sympathies in that direction - sometimes.

Edited by jamalrob on Jun 6, 2011 - 7:47 PM
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.