Centrism

[chveik]

TLDR Rancienne is a dick, political thinking and politic action is power and that power isn't as distinguishable from whatever definition he wants paste onto it as he thinks; it's nonsense; jibberish......."oh no I just thought of parliament as having power; now I can't remember what politics I believe".  Complete nonsense.

have you even read him?

[Zetetic]

I reckon you can start thinking of "power" when you're trying not to be evicted or trying to get paid what you've been told you would be.

Perhaps those situations exhaust people's political thinking - if so, that only underlines the need for power to enable thinking about things other than being evicted.

[TrenterPercenter]

have you even read him?

No, I don't even think I've ever heard of him tbh. I was being purposely silly in calling him a dick, thought that would be obvious.

I'm sure he is very interesting but if he believes in any hard sense what VGF2K wrote about power then I'm afraid it does sound a lot like rubbish perhaps it isn't being explained well.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

The question is whether you think politics should be defined as its own terms and practices, with its own kind of subjectivity and use of reason. Or whether you think politics doesn't have its own practices it just describes the imbalances of power within other kind of actions and there's nothing thats just politics on its own.

The former is traditionally the communist view, where political thinking doesn't need the legitimation of another mode of thinking other than work for equality itself being its own justification. The latter is the liberal view, that politics is entirely secondary to stuff like culture, society and economics, and it has to legitimate everything it does based on those fields that exercise a priority over politics.

It's not possible to seperate the question of power from the question of legitimation. Ultimately the political dispute can still said to be between socialist or Marxist politics which talk about acting on behalf of new subjects that don't need legitimacy beyond the desire for change, and liberal or liberal democratic politics which say the only valid subjects are those who are already legitimated by cultural or social differences.

[Zetetic]

Some examples of where you think different answers to that question have made a difference would be really interesting.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Some examples of where you think different answers to that question have made a difference would be really interesting.

That's why there is a problem of legitimation.

This is a problem with pragmatic or nominalist approaches to political ideas and theory: you're putting the cart before the horse. Supposing I listed a bunch of liberal policy changes at the early 1990s that I considered to be representative of what I'm saying, I'm not really saying anything about the historical events in question I'm just (trying and probably failing) to legitimate or validate my position. Political thinkers like Rancière often write in an axiomatic, speculative way without many real examples exactly because they want to avoid doing exactly this.

[Kankurette]

Isn't it about fairness/justice rather than niceness? Massive oversimplification, I know.

[Zetetic]

That's why there is a problem of legitimation.

Very droll.

[TrenterPercenter]

The question is whether you think politics should be defined as its own terms and practices, with its own kind of subjectivity and use of reason. Or whether you think politics doesn't have its own practices it just describes the imbalances of power within other kind of actions and there's nothing thats just politics on its own.

Ok talk me through this;

Do I think politics should (so are we talking here that is the view of politics that it is the important thing here not politics itself) be defined as it's own terms and practices (is politics a set, self-contained thing? are its terms and practices consistent anyway; are there not different forms of political activism in the world; different from each other and therefore not quantifiable in this manner?), with it's own kind of subjectivity (politics, a none living concept, a word made up to to semantically encapsulate a complex relational phenomena, has it's own subjectivity - I don't believe it has).  Politics obviously has it's "own practices" but defining them so broadly as "practices" does not really help - it is not specific enough to answer the specificity of the questions asked of it.

Again I'm not really sure what you are saying.

[chveik]

Some examples of where you think different answers to that question have made a difference would be really interesting.

what does that mean? is it that hard to find positive political events that have happened outside of parliamentery politics?

[Zetetic]

Apparently for some people.

[chveik]

yeah for centrists i guess

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Ok talk me through this;

Do I think politics should (so are we talking here that is the view of politics that it is the important thing here not politics itself) be defined as it's own terms and practices (is politics a set, self-contained thing? are its terms and practices consistent anyway; are there not different forms of political activism in the world; different from each other and therefore not quantifiable in this manner?), with it's own kind of subjectivity (politics, a none living concept, a word made up to to semantically encapsulate a complex relational phenomena, has it's own subjectivity - I don't believe it has).  Politics obviously has it's "own practices" but defining them so broadly as "practices" does not really help - it is not specific enough to answer the specificity of the questions asked of it.

Again I'm not really sure what you are saying.

Here's (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/32639) an extract from Rancière in question including what I paraphrased, even if you disagree with it its an interesting piece and worth reading the full ten theses if you can find them. I don't entirely agree with it either (for one Rancière is a strong historicist so I think that makes his position inherently contradictory). I just posted because its a great piece and a good argument against the two imperatives "return to pure politics" or "ignore politics, think only about power".

I think the best I can say is that there is something here that is beyond translation into English. Which is the idea that "power" doesn't just mean "the ability to do things" but implies its own legitimation, especially in politics or when talking about academic or research methodology. He's not saying that politics should not trying to acquire the means to accomplish what political subjects will, he's saying that is seperate from the idea of the exercise "power" as a wider legitimacy or a totalising, all encompassing abstraction (as in Foucault and Bourdieu)

What is proper to politics is thus lost at the outset if politics is thought of as a specific way of living. Politics cannot be defined on the basis of any pre-existing subject.

[chveik]

you probably need some english equivalent of  the concept of 'police'. power is a bit too vague

[Zetetic]

yeah for centrists i guess

As both your and VGF's latest posts make clear, the term "power" was being construed in a particular fashion - arguably against actual English usage (apparently).

My personal experience - in my own political activities - of an emphasis on "power" has been overwhelmingly against parliamentary (or representative) politics and I don't really think falls under "centrism' (but perhaps I'm mistaken).

I'm asking for examples, because they might give a way in to jargon for people who don't already entirely agree with you. But perhaps this is also somehow distasteful for reasons I do not understand.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Like in the MLK quote, I don't think you can seperate how he spoke of "power" from theological ideas about spirit and redemption through good works and moving for liberation. Or communal action.

Help I'm doing historicism myself now

[Video Game Fan 2000]

As both your and VGF's latest posts make clear, the term "power" was being construed in a particular fashion - arguably against actual English usage (apparently).

Its a standard usage in sociology, history and many branches of political theory. Its not obscure jargon.

Nobody in standard English uses "has the power to" interchangeably with "is able to" surely?

Power is a word from philosophy and theology, its not something describing a particular entity in the world we can all agree on. Of course its abstact, it has no singular defintion and thats compounded by English being one of the few languages that only has one root word for almost all associated concepts.

[Zetetic]

Its a standard usage in sociology, history and many branches of political theory. Its not obscure jargon.

Well.

[TrenterPercenter]

Here's (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/32639) an extract from Rancière in question including what I paraphrased, even if you disagree with it its an interesting piece and worth reading the full ten theses if you can find them. I don't entirely agree with it either (for one Rancière is a strong historicist so I think that makes his position inherently contradictory). I just posted because its a great piece and a good argument against the two imperatives "return to pure politics" or "ignore politics, think only about power".

I think the best I can say is that there is something here that is beyond translation into English. Which is the idea that "power" doesn't just mean "the ability to do things" but implies its own legitimation, especially in politics or when talking about academic or research methodology. He's not saying that politics should not trying to acquire the means to accomplish what political subjects will, he's saying that is seperate from the idea of the exercise "power" as a wider legitimacy or a totalising, all encompassing abstraction (as in Foucault and Bourdieu)

Sure sure, but have you ever studied SNAP!?

[Zetetic]

Nobody in standard English uses "has the power to" interchangeably with "is able to" surely?

I think the usual English usage is pretty close to that, albeit with a strong connotation of overcoming some opposing force or other's will.

I guess in the particular context of the here-and-now (apologies), and bringing this back to the subject of the thread, there's the use of the term with a strong alignment to the idea of "electability" and a particularly narrow view about the sort of rituals one must adopt if you want to be able to pass through the right gates and be able to do anything.

Which might be what you and chveik are pointing in the direction of as well, but I don't know.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Sure sure, but have you ever studied SNAP!?

I try to stick to the Greyskull School

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I think the usual English usage is pretty close to that, albeit with a strong connotation of overcoming some opposing force or other's will.

Well, there you go. "Overcoming some opposing force", you let the Germans in now.

I guess in the particular context of the here-and-now (apologies), and bringing this back to the subject of the thread, there's the use of the term with a strong alignment to the idea of "electability" and a particularly narrow view about the sort of rituals one must adopt if you want to be able to pass through the right gates and be able to do anything.

Which might be what you and chveik are pointing in the direction of as well, but I don't know.

I don't want to speak for chveik, but for me the distinction is between thinking of political subjects as constituted by their political actions and will, as opposed to thinking of politics as never having its own subjects and reduced to advocating for subjects constituted by other life. Or, alternatively, thinking of politics as one specific way of life that you're either in or out of.

Think about the tautologies and bad-think induced by the idea that Labour should appeal to "traditional labour voters" or by the converse idea that Labour should reach demographics it usually doesn't. Both stand in opposition to generating new support based not on outreach and focus grouping but on policy ideas that people actually respond to, which doesn't fall into either bracket. (this is reductive but its also as specific/pragmatic as I like to get)

[chveik]

I guess in the particular context of the here-and-now (apologies), and bringing this back to the subject of the thread, there's the use of the term with a strong alignment to the idea of "electability" and a particularly narrow view about the sort of rituals one must adopt if you want to be able to pass through the right gates and be able to do anything.

i'm a bit confused now since we appear to be talking at cross purposes. i don't think we could do without representation at allbut in my mind it's the difference between this model of indeed electability where things can only change under the conditions that are given to us in a particular political system and an idea where the people can create for and by themselves new institutions, where a new political subject can emerge (like the tiers état during the french revolution or indigenous movements in south america). it's just about being against the idea that there can be 'professionals' of politics like any other human activity which is the basis of liberalism. it doesn't make much sense to obtain power if the material conditions of who can be an agent of politics remain the same.

[jamiefairlie]

Power is the ability to have your decisions be carried out as you define them. Democracy as we have it is and always has been a veneer of power sharing that hides the concentration of actual power in the hands of a ruling elite. Revolutions have been able to tear down the existing power brokers but have inevitably just replaced them with a new elite class, see Animal Farm yada yada yada.

[Zetetic]

I'm grateful to both of you, chveik and VGF2000, for your last posts.

[Johnny Yesno]

Again I'm not really sure what you are saying.

I find myself saying this a lot to VGF2000. This is a good thing, apparently.

[TrenterPercenter]

I find myself saying this a lot to VGF2000. This is a good thing, apparently.

I think is mostly my failure though; I have no doubt VKF2K or Chviek is making an interesting point - this is the problem with discourse on forums; it is constrained and reduced so a lot of information is lost and hence why there is the need sometimes to simplify things.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I hope you take a look at that Rancière, its difficult but he wrote that way because he broke with 1970s structural Marxism and came to consider the role of teaching as provocative rather than traditionally didactic. These post-68 scholars and philosophers broke with the tradition of taking examples and then generalising from them because their concern was with what wasn't and couldn't be integrated into traditional politics and philosophical rhetoric, can't be represented by any presently existing political class.

Maybe check out Jodi Dean, she's heavily influenced by him and talks about similiar issues but talks about specific contemporary issues and historical examples.

[Zetetic]

edit fuck

[evilcommiedictator]

This is a pretty good representation of how Centrists see themselves as stationary objects in this world, and how people who want change offend them (also for every 1,000,000 4chan posts there's one good one)