human beings and the state/government

[Peter Kropotkin]

that for most of the history of philosophy,
until recently, (from Plato until the 20th century)
that political theory was tied into ethics/morals...
read Locke or Hobbes, for example, and their political
theories were directly tied into ethics/morals...
we have lost that and perhaps the reason for the
neglect into political theory today...

but of equal interest to me, anyway, is the fact that
all political theory, political philosophy begins with
a definition of human beings...that was the entire basis
of Greek and Roman political theory... they had a theory
of what it means to be human...that the universe was
an organized and rational place.. and that
human nature was set and locked into place...

the Greeks and the Romans for that matter, argued, a lot
about the nature of change in the universe...much of the
philosophical discourse in ancient times was about, how
was change possible? and how did that differ from the
Medieval period? For one who lived in the medieval times,
that the only constant was god.... the Medieval times
lost that fixed nature of the ancient world.. the chaotic
nature of the universe was quite evident to anyone paying
attention to the times over a thousand years.. from 400 AD to
roughly 1400 AD... give a few years either way...

that the world from 1400 and on, were relatively,
relatively stable.. and the new changes were driven, in part,
by the discovery of science and technology....
and the new science gave us an understanding of
what it meant to be human... including the
return of the ancient Greek and Roman writings
that were being discovered all over Europe...
the educated man could read Latin and the really
educated man could read Greek...

this new/old understanding of what it means to be human,
create a new dynamic in the west including the nature
and purpose of the state/government....
both Hobbes and Locke thought was driven by both
the ancient writings of the Greeks and Romans,
and the rise of science during their time....(Locke was
a doctor who used the scientific method)

the thought of both Locke and Hobbes engaged in seeking out
the firmest path to order and stability within a society/state....
Hobbes concluded a unlimited monarch was the path
and Locke favored more democratic methods...

(I find it interesting that two of the most
important political writers lived over 300 years ago..
before much of our social, scientific, philosophical
and technology came into being, would and should the
impact of computers or cars for example, have change their
thoughts?)

the next great political writer was Marx.. and his thought couldn't
have come into being any sooner... for he was impacted by
what he saw coming into being, factories, capitalism, workers
being devalued and negated, and the role of money in all of this...
Marx had a theory about what being human meant... and what
was the goal of being human was...

and that is really what political writing was about before
the modern age... explaining what being human meant
and what system best fit that understanding...
which is exactly what Marx did...

and why hasn't political philosophy/theory really
hasn't been touch on in the last 123 years... for we
don't have a theory of what it means to be human....
and without a theory about what being human means,
we cannot create a political system, a state/government
that matches that understanding of what it means to be human....

think about this.. that we have a system in place,
in which we think of the political in terms of obeying the
law... but that means that we are not thinking about people
in terms of what it means to be human, it doesn't matter
in a system of laws... you have to fit into the system,
the law comes first, and who you are comes a distant second...
the law must be obey regardless of our understanding of
what it means to be human...

which is to say, we force the people to fit into the system/the state
instead of developing a system/state to match what it means to
be human... and I believe, this is in part, why our
political systems are failing... we are forcing people to fit
into the system instead of creating a system that matches
who people, human beings are...

to obey the law, regardless of who you are, negates, denies
the human nature inside of us...

thus ends part one...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

over the last 100 years, perhaps the best
political writer was John Rawls.. and his writings
was full of a phrase that kinda limited what he could do...
he was always writing about the "reasonable man"
that we could hold discourse or discussions if
everyone were just reasonable...but that isn't a
understanding of what human beings are, it is a hope
that we become reasonable human beings... and that
leaves out the question about who is or how do we define
what a "reasonable human being is".. how would I know
who is or who isn't, a reasonable human being?

and that is why, in part, why Rawls fails... he doesn't give us
a definition of what it means to be a human being...
it is, at best, guessed at.... but not defined....

this question of what it means to be human is quite literally,
front and center in our political discourse today, but it isn't
really discussed... and that doesn't seem to make sense until
you think about it....

conservatives believe that human nature is fixed and defined...
for the conservative Machiavelli has the right idea...
that a human beings nature, their being is fixed and set
from the day they are born... once born evil, is to die evil..
with no change ever in one's life...as to our nature....
that is why conservative's hold the beliefs that they hold..
given that change is not possible within a human being,
that we must punish people harshly for prison is
for punishment, not rehabilitation....
that the most important function of the state/government
is to maintain safety/security... there is no other real function
for the state/government.. which is why the conservative
despises the welfare state... why save people that are doomed
to be born, live and die as "welfare cheats", that others are lazy,
uneducated, shiftless, and only out to steal from the conservative...
the conservative has an incredible negative understanding of what
it means to be human...
and it is only by the harsh hand of the state, that allows the
good people, I.E. the conservatives, to live their lives...

that the federal, state and local budgets are a understanding
of what it means to be human, that budgets are moral/ethical
documents.... which explains why the liberal budget and the
conservative budget is so different...that they
have vastly different understanding of what it means to be human....

to a liberal, being human is about change and possibilities...
we are not fixed in our nature, we can change and adapt
and become something different is one of the major differences
between conservatives and liberals... change is possible for
the liberals and not possible for the conservatives...

which is why the liberals view punishment and prisons
and security/safety differently than conservatives...
and why the budgets of liberal states like California
and New York is very different than states like Mississippi
and Florida... we have very different views of what it
means to be human...

and part of the conversation about being "WOKE" revolves around
this different view of being human...people change and become
something different and that is considered to be "WOKE"...
To acknowledge that people can and do change in their nature, about
who they are is a liberal viewpoint... but not a conservative
viewpoint... and to be "UNWOKE" is to refuse to accept
that change is possible, but not only possible but is desirable...

we must only accept change but we must create change as we change
and our environment changes... I am different than I was 10 years,
is being ''WOKE" that what worked for me 10 years ago, no longer
works for me... and when I retire in a few years, with luck, I must
change again to adapt to the fact that I will be retired... the
actions I take will be different than the actions I take now,
because my situation will be different... to be retired and
to be working is a vastly different situation and we must change
and adapt our nature to the new reality of retirement...
what worked when we work is different than what works
when we retire...change, adaptation, transformation is
the key at every new stage in our life....

but change and adaptation and transformation is not what
the conservative believes in... we are fixed, set in who
we are and what our nature is...which is simply not true...

thus ends part two...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so let us follow this out with an understanding
of the modern ism's, ideologies that are dominant
today...

what kind of human being does capitalism believe we are?
capitalism in fact can only work if it holds to the idea
that human beings are greedy, full of lust and the need
for acquiring things...for capitalism to work, it
needs us to pursue the trinkets of existence...
that of money/fame/power/titles and material possessions...

capitalism will fail if we pursue any other course.. so,
if we were to make the search for being human, the
pursuit of justice, capitalism will fail....
if we pursue freedom or love or hope or charity,
then capitalism fails...

and the same is true of our political systems...
that many people want and need doctorships,
is to hold to a certain point of view about the
nature of human beings.... that we cannot or
are unable to be free or just, is the basic POV
of one who strongly believes in dictatorships...
the reason for having a dictatorship is because
people are unable to handle any other form of
government/state....people are failures, so they
need a strict form of government to keep them
working and living.... it is a very negative vision
of what is possible for human beings...
that human beings are not capable of being free or
making their own choices and thus they must have
a dictatorship...there is no way one can spin that
into a positive understanding of human beings...

whereas liberals do believe that human beings are capable
of being free and seeking out their own needs....
there is no need for a dictatorship because
people can adjust and hold to a democracy whereas
they are free and capable of making their own choices,
to have the freedom to be who they are...
and who they want to be....

or to say it another way, conservatives want to force people
into being what the law or the dictator says they are,
and liberals want a political system that is more flexible
and able to change and adapt to the changing conditions
of being human...

so, do we have a political system that adapts to people
or do we have people forced into adapting to the political system?
that is kinda the political question... do we force people to
adapt to the law or do have a system/law that adapts to people?
and if so, how would we be able to adjust the political system
to adjust or adapt the new conditions?

and here is the interesting thing.. that the founding fathers,
did in fact, create a system that was flexible and adaptable
to the changing conditions on the ground... they set up basic
principles, the constitution, to cover what they thought
were the principles of government, the state...
the form of government as it were... a president, a congress,
a judicial branch.. the constitution is a broad outline
of government that allows adjustments to that broad
outline... that we were allowed to make changes to
the bill of rights, that we were allowed to create new
rights and amendments is part of this wisdom to allow
change and adaptation in the government/state....
we started with a bill of rights that was only 10
amendments and now we have 27 amendments ...
as the years pass and changed, we were able to adapt
and change with the new conditions and environment
that we now have...

left to conservatives, we wouldn't be able to change
and adapt the way we have... to this day, they still hold
to the constitution as being sacred and inviolable.... but
to hold to that POV is to be unable to change and adapt
to the new conditions we find ourselves in....

to be unable to change or adapt is begging to fail...
the one surefire path to failure is being unable to change
or adapt to the new conditions we find ourselves in...
to fail as a human being, to fail as a political system and
to fail as a state/or government....

thus ends part 3

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

to listen to conservative claim that anything a liberal
does is "communism" is not only idiotic, but flat out wrong....

the fact is that if we believe in the conservative understanding
of communism, that America has been a communistic country
for decades... that a government that build roads is communism
and a government that funds schools and build sewage
plants if communism...and a government that helps
or aids it citizens, is communism...unless its massive
tax cuts for the rich and then it's all good....
it's not communism if it helps the wealthy or powerful....
but if it helps or aids the average citizen, that is, by
a conservative definition, communism...

so, given that, by the conservative definition,
we are a communistic country and have been for decades....
what now?

if the state/government aids or helps anyone who is
not wealthy or powerful, that being communism...
that definition runs into a problem.. that
communism is not a political theory, it is
an economic theory.... as is capitalism
and mercantilism and hunter-gatherers are
economic systems, not political systems....
much of the confusion and problems caused
by conservatives, is because they can't tell
the difference between an economic
system and a political system

capitalism is the American economic system, but
it is not the political system, but conservative
mix up the two and act as if they are one and the same...
they are not.... the communism of the Soviet Union
failed because the political leaders of the Soviet Union
thought of the two distinct and separate systems,
were one and the same....

you can easily have communism as an economic system
and democracy as its political system.. you can mix
and match any political system with any economic
system and it will be able to function.... as long as
you don't fuck the other aspects of this....
our confusion is that we think of our
political system as an economic system and
visa versa....

we can and must separate out the two systems..
so we can easily have a democracy and have a communistic
economic system...but the Soviet system failed because
it was unable to mix and match the systems in a way
that worked... communism as a political system is not going
to be successful and an economic system that pretends to be
a political system will just as surely fail...

which is, in part, why we are having issues in America today..
we can't figure out which is the political and which
is the economic system... we have them mixed up and
that is leading the way to our current issues...

and then we also have issues because the economic system
as does the political system have an idea of what it
means to be human... the idea of what is a human being,
is a vital part of any economic or political system....
in capitalism today, we have an negative idea of
human being and we have a negative political faith
that has a damning idea of what it means to be human....

to take an honest look at America today, part of our
problems/issues is that we have, in great part,
accepted the very negative vision of the conservative...
our idea of laws, punishment and justice is defined
by the conservative idea of what a human being is....

we need to return to the enlightenment ideal of
a human being.. which is to say, that human beings,
are rational beings who can engage in and create
their own idea of what a human being is...

we don't need to be told a human being is evil or
incapable of change or adaptation... for we can
change, we can adapt to new conditions and
environments....

with a new POV, we also must create a new view of
the state/government, in which, what is the point of,
or meaning of what a state/government does or doesn't do...

thus ends part 4...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

to restate my problem..

what is the point of the state/government?

what is it supposed to do... is its goal to be about
the safety and security of the people, as conservatives claim
or does it have a greater, more comprehensive goal?
can the government/state engage in the "welfare state"
as a legitimate goal?

and all of that returns to this idea of "what does it mean
to be human?''

what is the proper role of government/the state in our lives?
as I have stated, that two of the most important philosophers
about the state/government, lived over 300 years ago...
before our modern scientific world... with its technological
advancements and the coming AI revolution..

one of the problems with philosophy is that it still hasn't
caught up with modern science... philosophers have trailed
behind science, and thus we have a hard time connecting
modern science, physics, quantum mechanics, entropy,
into philosophy.... whereas Newton for example, as with
Spinoza, was very interested in the connection between
science and what science is, philosophically....
the ''watchmaker theory of the world'' came from science,
in fact, much of philosophy for centuries, was drawn from
science.... which isn't true today because most philosophers
don't understand science or physics...

the single most important concept that we should understand
philosophically is entropy...that change is created by objects
and people due to the influence of entropy...the Greeks spent
much ink discussing how change was possible... and what
was the source of that change...and today, we can explain
change, through evolution, entropy, physics, chemistry...

philosophy has advanced, we have just assumed
that it hasn't advanced...

and so, we return to our problem,

what is the point of the state/government?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

our understanding of what it means to be human drives
our understanding of the state/government....
if we understand human beings to be just workers,
producers, or consumers, a certain type of government,
of the state is needed... such as we have today...
but if the point of being human is to seek out our
possibilities, then we need another form of government/state....

so what type of people is assumed by the form of government?

let us talk about anarchism...what type of people exists
under anarchism? the assumption is that people aren't babies,
that they have self-control and are able to act as adults,
that they are capable of making and fulfilling their
choices... the state/government is not about babysitting
people in an anarchist society...they are adults and
they act like it...

so, in a dictatorship, what type of people are assumed?

that people are incapable of making decisions, that they
need someone else to make those important decisions,
that only a dictator can make the right choices for us,
as we are not capable of making the right choice...

and what of a democracy? that system of government/state
suggests that people are capable of making the right choice,
and they don't need someone else to make the choices for
them... that we are individually and collectively capable
of making the right choice for ourselves, both individually
and collectively...

and what about a socialist state? what type of people
are engaged in the socialistic state? that we can make
the right choices individually and collectively, but
that we need each other to survive..
there is no way that I can achieve anything without
the help of the state/society/ or government...the only way
I can succeed personally is through the help of others...
and that is the socialist understanding of who people are...


people have often, and quite ignorantly, have accused me
of being an communist.. I am not...I am far closer to
being an anarchist than any other political system...
and I was an anarchist for over 10 years living the
anarchist life... and so, what kind of human being am I,
that I have lived being an anarchist? one that believes
that human beings have the tools and ability to become
who we are.. I believe in a more independent type of
person...but I also recognize that people need other
people to survive.. physically, emotionally,
psychologically, we need each other.. we cannot meet the
needs that we have, without the assistance of others...
I cannot find love, a basic human need without others,
I cannot find food or safety or a sense of belonging,
without others... my needs, almost all of them,
can only be found with an engagement with others...
alone, I cannot find or meet my own individual needs....

which leads us to another aspect of government/the state..
which political system allows us to meet our needs the best?
the answer, at least for me, is a democracy...but a much
purer democracy then we have now... I would vote for
a more direct democracy and not a representational
government.. in other words, congress and the president would
be more engaged in doing what I want...I decide what is to be done,
and they simply follow that... I decide, as part of a direct democracy...
with technology today, we can have a much more direct democracy
then we do.... we can use computers to vote on our own needs..
and that leads us to an understanding of what kind of people
we have in our state/society today... that they are capable of
conducting actions on their own behalf... there is no need for
representational democracy...

Kropotkin