James A. Donald wrote:
--
From: ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Do you really think that politics only exists where
there is a state? I'd have thought the opposite is
true. Most states actively prevent most people
participating in politics.
The more authoritarian the state, the more in compells
people to participate in politics, making eveything they
do or think political, for example the endless meetings
in Cuba and Mao's china,
That seems almost the opposite of politics to me. The actual
politics - the arguments, the decisions - has been done in some
smoke-filled room beforehand. The public meeting is nothing more
than the product launch.
Where there is no state everyone is a politician, all
the time, and all public acts are overtly political.
So when I buy coffee, that is political?
Well, yes. If only because the buyer and seller are both extending
the reach of their lives to influence others to behave in the way
that they want. Using money in this case rather than votes or
threats, but still in a sense a kind of politics.
And of course on a large scale more obviously what is more
conventionally called politics - that small transaction, a dollar
for a cup of coffee, multiplied by millions can cause armies to
move, can set up and tear down governments, induce luxury in one
place, famine in another. If we can say that war is politics
carried on by another means we can also say that markets are
politics carried on by other means.
Surely the non state area of our lives is the non
political area of our lives.
Not unless we are living as hermits. Our entire lives involve
rubbing up against other people and negotiating our relations with
them. Which is basically what politics is
