Pragmatism, as I said a few times now, is a methodology based on the systematic attempt to get free from subjective bias.
Not under any of the definitions of that word that appear in my dictionary. The term you're looking for is "the scientific method." But of course, being familiar with the rather dubious claims of Marxism to be based on a scientific understanding of the world, you might understandably be hesitant to claim that your ideology is "scientific." It sounds much better to call it "pragmatic" and then do a rhetorical bait-and-switch to substitute in the meaning of "scientific."
You are of course free to attempt to construct your own political philosophy based on concepts that you invent out of thin air, or based on re-defining words that have a reasonably precise meaning in the context of other political philosophy. And by appropriating words with positive connotations, you might get people to profess agreement. But that's not quite the same thing as convincing them that your position is correct.
In the meanwhile, if you want to get your point across to people who actually do have a little schooling in the standard terminology of political theory, you'd be wise to at least give a nod in the direction of the usual terminology instead of dismissing it as ideologically influenced (it is, of course, just as your terminology is, but that does not render it invalid...).
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Hardline ideologists - communists/marxists, fascists, hard right, neocons, neolibs (soc' and eco') occupy the political scene for some time. The point would be no more than applying reason even when the Book says things are this or that way. I'm not saying that computers should decide life much like rugby would only have video equipped robot as referee. I don't say people shouldn't have convictions, but they should be thought of, not just faith.
You think "the war against fatcats", "bigots", "McPain", "Sarko's baiting for racists", "USSR was not really communist" are not rants, do not come from faith and visceral reactions? Do they strike you as reasonable, or productive? Polarisation, framing, invective, truth twisting, sloganeering, this is has always been in fundamentalists' toolbox.
As I said to melo, people need frameworks. People needed religions, and were often exploited by them or by their opportunists. Ideologies today are much like religions yesterday: they pretend to give people a framework, an ideal, make some good points, but behind their rather abstract theoretical base, it often hides opportunism and faith.
"My" pragmatism would be opposed this ideological faith. Not against honest conviction, but against pre-determined, unquestioned conviction, the kind saying "we know workers are exploited, we need no argument or nuancing, anyone bringing that is a miscreant, anyone in dissent is evil". (who said that? one might ask; but it was there permeating everything) Those ideologies I listed above, in the end, amount to exactly that, despite some good, humanist, or logical points they have.
The idea would be about taking faith and intellectual dishonety out of politics and political ideas - call it idealistic, and as such, ideological :) We need people who think critically, rather than just activists, we need people who believe in what they do for a good reason, who combat discrimination not from feminist faith, or biased statistics, but are aware that not all inequality comes from discrimination or unfairness. That they need to look for the causes, not just act out of activism. I didn't plead for a mathematical objectivity, it's impossible and inhumane, and I feel quite more sympathetic to classical liberalism and enlightenment humanism than would be needed to deny that. I'm just getting the impression people are beginning to appreciate more down to earth politics, and less ranting and wild dreams. One might point me to Obama's hopeful yes we can own slogans. Yes, but we can change things that don't work, so that they work, in real life, and not in order to implement this or that ideological agenda. Just wait and watch him at it :) Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
What one might see as my excessive detachedness, abstract objectivity, mathematical formulas, or "scientific method" not unlike Marx's, is more like allowing more critical thinking, more facts, more down-to-earth practical life stances into politics.
Yeah... "critical thinking" - we sure need more Cobb County style "critical thinking..."
Now, that's a real "down to earth" "practical life" approach that caters to the issues that the community actually cares about.
Coming from the guy who said that sloganeering pollutes the debate...
You think "the war against fatcats", "bigots", "McPain", "Sarko's baiting for racists", "USSR was not really communist" are not rants, do not come from faith and visceral reactions?
It's class war, and has a fairly precise meaning that involves taking away billionaires' billions (whether one permits them to keep their millions is where the imprecision comes in), respectively billionaires trying to become trillionaires at the expense of everyone who isn't a billionaire. The latter part being the more common in recent decades...
As for Sarko's race baiting... wasn't it you who said something along the lines of if the shoe fits?
"Bigot" can be a slur, or it can be an accurate assessment of a person. Someone who thinks that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry (or registered partnership or whatever you want to call it to not offend the fundagelical fruitcakes) is a bigot - I hardly think you'll deny that? Context is important.
Similar considerations apply for McPain.
I agree with you on the USSR being communist.
So what was that? One and two halves out of five? But hey, who's counting, right? I'm just being a spoilsport here and disrupting a perfectly good ideological rant.
"My" pragmatism would be opposed this ideological faith. Not against honest conviction, but against pre-determined, unquestioned conviction,
I never saw you make a serious attempt at challenging anybody's convictions. A serious attempt at doing so would involve data and policy, two things you have so far scrupulously avoided to pass comment on.
the kind saying "we know workers are exploited, we need no argument or nuancing, anyone bringing that is a miscreant, anyone in dissent is evil". (who said that? one might ask; but it was there permeating everything)
You never actually presented any data - at least none I've seen. Anecdotes are all well and fine as fairy tales go, but they really don't compare to a good, solid graph.
It would be one thing if all you wanted was for us to accept that workers are not getting a raw deal - and need to be getting an even rawer one - on blind faith, a little hand-waving and some sloganeering that could have been (and often has been) clipped right out of the part of the press that writes in big, easy letters and rarely use words with more than two syllables.
It is quite a different order of chutzpah to claim that this is injecting critical thinking into the debate.
The idea would be about taking faith and intellectual dishonety out of politics and political ideas - call it idealistic, and as such, ideological :)
I'm all for that - I just think you're barking up the wrong tree. The majority of the left got that memo decades ago.
We need people who think critically, rather than just activists, we need people who believe in what they do for a good reason, who combat discrimination not from feminist faith, or biased statistics, but are aware that not all inequality comes from discrimination or unfairness.
Yawn Been there, done that, got a Reagan Revolution for our troubles. We have all those things. What we need is activism that makes sure we can actually put to use any of the insights we gain from all this critical thinking and introspection.
You really are barking up the wrong tree here. The left is so far behind on the propaganda game that it's downright pitiful. It's like hearing a committed pacifist give sermons on the principles of non-violence to a Palestinian kid because he throws rocks at the Israeli tank that's just plowed his house down...
I'm just getting the impression people are beginning to appreciate more down to earth politics, and less ranting and wild dreams. One might point me to Obama's hopeful yes we can own slogans. Yes, but we can change things that don't work, so that they work, in real life, and not in order to implement this or that ideological agenda. Just wait and watch him at it :)
I don't know what you're smoking, but it's unfair of you not to share! (I think I know what you've been reading, but that's neither here nor there...)
I would be most happy if Obama could change the things that don't work so they start working - working for all the people all over the world, ideally. But heck, if he can get it working for all the people all over the US, I'd be impressed.
Given the shitpile that thirty consecutive years of Reaganomics (is it ideological to point out that the current financial and ecological disasters have been the sole and proprietary responsibility of the Right?) have dumped on him, I'd be very surprised.
Given the decrepit state of US democracy (is it ideological to point out that reduced voter turnout has been a deliberate strategy from the Right in the US?), I'd be very, very surprised.
Given that so far he seems to be more about centrism and sticking to Conventional Wisdom (is it ideological to point out that Conventional Wisdom is flat out wrong on how to run an economy?) than about radical change to make things work for Main Street as opposed to Wall Street (and is it ideological to point out that there has been a massive transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street in the last three decades?), I'd be extremely surprised.
