A Free Range Philosopher Rants
I offered this up when asked why I cancelled my subscription to a left wing publication:
...all I wish to say is that I'm more of a free range philosopher than a politician, and left wing politics, as far as I've been able to discern, is just as toxic as right wing politics.
Two things in particular stick in my craw:
[1] I find Anarchism (in all of its manifestations of shiny, smooth rhetoric) to be too destructive to be of any good. In more than nine years of rubbing shoulders with left wingers I've not been able find one who can give me satisfactory answers to my questions about it. All I ever get is dismissive, evasive, and glibly supercilious sophistry. And dogma. I get tons of dogma.
[2] Political non-violence is a "core value" of mine. I can find only lip service to this concept whenever I dig deeply into the mutterings of those on the left with whom I have been engaged. All manner of rationalisations, justifications and hypocrisy emerge when discussing this topic. I am still a "lefty" at heart, but I have lost all hope in the left as a viable political force capable of toppling the right without it surrendering the temptations of violent revolution. And violent political action is something to which I will never lend my support. The power of the teachings of Jesus and Gandhi are dismissed derisively as being naiive by those who cling to the idea that political violence can be justified. The devastating power of non-violence as an absolute political strategy by a mass movement is not fully understood by the dominant ideologues on the left (or the right, for that matter).
They probably have no clue as to what I'm talking about. All the more reason to stop buying their rag.
...all I wish to say is that I'm more of a free range philosopher than a politician, and left wing politics, as far as I've been able to discern, is just as toxic as right wing politics.
Two things in particular stick in my craw:
[1] I find Anarchism (in all of its manifestations of shiny, smooth rhetoric) to be too destructive to be of any good. In more than nine years of rubbing shoulders with left wingers I've not been able find one who can give me satisfactory answers to my questions about it. All I ever get is dismissive, evasive, and glibly supercilious sophistry. And dogma. I get tons of dogma.
[2] Political non-violence is a "core value" of mine. I can find only lip service to this concept whenever I dig deeply into the mutterings of those on the left with whom I have been engaged. All manner of rationalisations, justifications and hypocrisy emerge when discussing this topic. I am still a "lefty" at heart, but I have lost all hope in the left as a viable political force capable of toppling the right without it surrendering the temptations of violent revolution. And violent political action is something to which I will never lend my support. The power of the teachings of Jesus and Gandhi are dismissed derisively as being naiive by those who cling to the idea that political violence can be justified. The devastating power of non-violence as an absolute political strategy by a mass movement is not fully understood by the dominant ideologues on the left (or the right, for that matter).
They probably have no clue as to what I'm talking about. All the more reason to stop buying their rag.
posted by The Editor at
8:24 AM
1 Comments:
Most of the real reasoning for a political strategy are hidden by sugary promises.
To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========