by starroute » Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:54 pm
Years ago, I worked out a sort of four-way schema of where people fit politically depending on whether they do or don't believe in the political system and do or don't believe in evil.<br><br>Liberals believe in the system but not in evil. This is what makes them progressives -- they think there is no limit to how far the system can be improved, because there are no powerful external forces capable of holding it back.<br><br>Conservatives believe in both the system and evil. They think that human nature is innately flawed, that government exists mostly as a constraint on the wicked, and that there isn't much reason to expect things will be better in the future than they have been in the past.<br><br>Anarchists don't believe either in the system or in evil. The more positive among them think that human beings left to their own devices will pretty much do the right thing, and that government and other social institutions are themselves the sources of crime and suffering. The more negative accept that humans have a seemingly unlimited ability to crap things up, but tend to attribute that to the naturally entropic nature of existence and see some hope for gradual evolutionary progress despite it.<br><br>Nihilists believe in evil but not in the system. They think that everything is corrupt with no way out, and that any suggestion otherwise is hypocrisy or propaganda.<br><br>Most people here at RI, I suppose, are anarchists or nihilists. Not much faith in the system, a common willingness to believe the worst of it -- but some degree of division on whether there are icky things out there working to corrupt, enslave, and destroy or if it's just normal human greed and selfishness.<br><br>In contrast, the reigning philosophy over at DU is liberal/progressive. This means they *have* to believe in the system -- if not in the present corrupt system, then at least in the potential for a reformed and rightly-directed system. Similarly, they *can't* believe in evil, or in any sort of permanent dark strain to human affairs that is doomed to derail even the best-meaning plans for improvement. They have to deny or turn away anything that might challenge their paradigm, because to let go of it would be to let go of their essential identity.<br><br>So don't blame DU or Kos for being what they are. It's their role, their position in the anti-establishment ecosystem, and they're fulfilling it very adequately. The real problem I see is that there's nothing in between DU and RI. As I've said here before, I'd love it if there was a general political board with a more radical slant than DU but with a deep focus on social problems and solutions rather than on conspiracies and dark forces.<br><br>But since there isn't, I have to get the information and the soulfood I need wherever I can find them -- and if that means RI in the morning and DU in the afternoon, so be it.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>