• BOMBS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think the argument is that economics and politics are not independent of each other. They are two sides of the same coin. Whomever controls the food supply has power over the population, which means it has political power. Whomever has power over the population, has power over the food supply. Basically, economics and politics are different perspectives on power.

    For example, the political structures in the West create the rules over who gets to obtain power through the economy. From the other direction, the people with economic power get to control who gets to obtain power through the political structures.

    • Soleos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for this, I like the pragmatic view that those with economic power select those who obtain political power. I certainly don’t think they’re independent. The economic system influences the political system for sure, but categorically/formally we’re still talking about two distinct systems, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about a separate political structure

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Everything is politics” is an argument that right wing grifters often use. Culture? Politics! Sexual orientation? Politics! Science? Politics!

      The “everything is politics” argument is the warped kind of thinking of people that are trying to gain control over others.

      • Soleos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would say the greater achievement of right wing grifters is the connotation that “politics” is inherently bad and shameful, as implied by your comment as well.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s bad but necessary. It would be great if we lived in a world where there was no need for government, therefore no need for government policy, and therefore no need to debate those policies.

          But in the real world government is necessary therefore politics are necessary. The right wing confuses people with the belief that politics is bad and therefore should be eliminates. The left confuses people with the belief that politics should be good and because it isn’t people should avoid participation.

          Politics is ugly, and having unrealistic expectations for it is what blocks a lot of progress from happening. The right are better able to accomplish their goals through politics (even when their goals are harmful) because they have a better understanding of the ugliness. The left is oftentimes ineffective out of a silly desire to be above the ugliness of politics.

          • Soleos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I see what you’re saying in terms of idealism/naivete vs pragmatism. However I also get the sense that what you mean by government and politics is a bit different from what the left usually means. I’d be interested to understand what you mean by “politics” and “government”.

            A couple follow-up questions that might help clarify the distinctions

            1. does a society make choices between better and worse practice of politics/government?
            2. what would a world that doesn’t need government look like if you were to imagine it?

            The only part is disagree with is that the left encourages not participating in politics. I’m pretty sure a pillar of the left is encouraging informed participation in politics. Unless you mean punk/commie ideas of rejecting the establishment in favour of revolution? That’s still participation in politics.

            • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think it’s the left that discourages participation in politics. The right discourages the left from participating in politics and all too often the left falls for it, hook line and sinker. The right has the “both sides” narratives down to a science, but despite promoting this kind of thinking, they always vote.

              does a society make choices between better and worse practice of politics/government?

              Yes. But it’s not like ordering a product from Amazon. You don’t put your desired improvements in a cart and have it delivered in two days. To accomplish the change you want in a democracy, you need to vote in many elections, sometimes over decades. If you really care you might want to join a major political party and discuss the issues important to you with them. Again this may take decades, but if the issue is important enough then you’re willing to make that effort. Note how long the Christian right worked to get abortion banned. They didn’t instantly get to have things their way it took voting in every election, attending party meetings, along with decades of apathy on the left.

              what would a world that doesn’t need government look like if you were to imagine it?

              Mad Max kinda shit. Do you prefer the leadership of Lord Humungus or Immorten Joe?

              There will always be a government. We’re a tribal species and we will form into tribes and war against one another if there is no one that sets the laws and enforces them. Those tribes would develop into a feudalistic society which may someday develop into a democracy again.

              That whole Marxist “the state will whither away” thing is just pseudo religious belief comparable to the Christian belief in a rapture followed by an eternity of paradise. Which is why it’s attractive to atheists that were formally Christians. Old habits and all that.

              • Soleos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Huh, yeah we’re probably in closer agreement that initially appeared. Some earlier bits in your other comments came across more “anti-politics”

                • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well I see it as a necessary evil. If you have democracy you’re gonna have politics. Hell you still have politics even without democracy, just a different kind and usually behind closed doors.

                  For me the phrase “politics is stupid but politics is important” sums it up best.

                  Politics is like taking a shit, it’s messy and it stinks, but it’s something you gotta deal with. And it’s preferable to take a shower after it’s been dealt with.

                  • Soleos@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I feel like you’re splitting hairs, like saying all the shit parts of democracy are politics and all the not shit parts are somehow not politics. Democracy IS a part of politics. How about this, if you are to play devil’s advocate for yourself, try listing 3 examples of how politics is good rather than evil.

                    My view is a bit different though. I see it more as an inherent property or process of society, like mass is to matter or spatial distribution of a flock of birds.