Why has nobody since Marx and Trotsky come up with an alternative socio-political philosophy?
4 viewsThis is a question I have put to myself on the odd occasion. The odd occasion that provoked this question once again was that of V-day in Italy and what appears to be an attempt to introduce a new, freer form of democracy in Italy, maybe. Grillo has stirred up a considerable furore as a result of the use of mass communication - a form of mass communcation, perhaps the last, that cannot easily be stifled.
The positive and negative effects of mass communication are very much governed by those who control it. Maybe this is something Marx and Trotsky saw coming, and this was one of the reasons why they proposed alternative forms of democracy. Or, more possibly, they just did not like the fact that the few so often dictate to the many. They must have believed that the societies in which they lived were not really functioning, and simply not representing the wishes of the masses.
I believe that today we live in a society similar to, if not much worse, the society that provoked Marx and Trotsky into proposing alternatives. But, I have not heard of any present day equivalents of these two great thinkers. Why is this so? Is there nobody out there that can come up with a workable truely democratic model for world society? This is something I cannot believe. Someone, somewhere must have learnt something from the predominantly failed attempts to implement Marx and Trotsky’s alternatives, so why can’t anyone come up with a decent alternative?
I wish I knew. And if anyone can tell me, I’m all ears.
More articles on similar subjects:
Email This Post
Comments
2 Responses to “Why has nobody since Marx and Trotsky come up with an alternative socio-political philosophy?”
Have your say
News From Ansa- Buy stocks, Berlusconi says October 10, 2008International markets end week on the slide
- SuperEnalotto pot hits 80 million October 10, 2008Heaving betting a windfall for the state's coffers
- Ancient Roman stadium opened October 10, 2008Olympic-style games were held at emperor's arena near Naples
- Ethical changes needed, Napolitano October 10, 2008Credit crunch demands new rules for financial world
- Dante-mad thief nabbed October 10, 2008Robber 'turned on' to Divine Comedy by Benigni
- Arts guide: exhibits in Italy October 10, 2008Neo-Impressionists in Milan, Picasso in Rome
- Buy stocks, Berlusconi says October 10, 2008
- Beppe Grillo
Perhaps there are already too many social-political philosophies. In the natural course of economic development a new antithesis to “empire” - read economic globalization - could be forming. Some neo-marxists have tried to re-package Communism to provide for it a philosophical base or label. I was thinking of Hardt & Negri ‘Empire” - not something you want to read on a pleasant day in Milan. I f you understand from it what has been so glorious about Communism, let us know in a short paragraph. I do not foresee nor do I wish these efforts any success. The horrible devastation and economic failure of Communism is too recent for the “masses” to follow that flag. And besides I would not describe a system that demands a rule by a particular class to the exclusion of others, as either democratic or natural
An interesting observation Antonio regarding the fact that maybe there are too many social-political philosophies. And yes, globalisation could well be a new form of empire building and I suppose it could be said that globalization is also leading to a weakened form of democracy that is driven more by what I would call ‘market politics’, that is only doing the things that are likely to keep you in power - the things that appeal to the ‘market’ ie the voters. Sometimes this means that good things are done, other times only things that generate media exposure are achieved.
As for communism, in an ideal world, perhaps it could work, which is why others have attempted to re-package it. Communist systems I think, are, theoretically, fairer than capitalistic systems, but so far as I have seen, most communist states have ended up at worst, as dictatorships -or at best communist regimes are oligarchic - because they are the only ways to implement a communist system, which I really believe goes against human nature. And so, as you say, communism is anything by democratic.
I have not read Hardt & Negri’s ‘Empire’, but I’ll try and get hold of a copy.
Thanks for your thoughtful observations.
Kind regards,
Alex