› ›

HERE'S YOUR POLITICAL THREAD

OdradekOdradek
edited 2012-12-22 21:32:53 in General

Firstly, it's called Rational Minimalism and it will be based on psychology, sociology, statistics, and mathematics, not on things like religion, emotion, or the stubbornness of current ideologies. I believe the current system of politics is outdated. It's run by very unscientific means, and running a nation is too serious to leave to squabbling idealists. I currently hold a BA in Political Science and have been thinking about this for some time.

According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a human must ensure that their basic needs are fulfilled before they can go on to things like intellectual fulfillment, creativity, etc. Therefore, the government should provide for the bottom two levels of the hierarchy so that people can focus on higher level needs. This will ensure that more people focus on things like getting an education, getting ahead at their job, and so on.

Concerning the economy, by looking at places like Hong Kong, it's obvious that an economic system that is highly capitalist results in greater prosperity. Therefore, laissez-faire capitalism should be embraced.

Concerning social issues, it is necessary to give people the most social freedoms possible. Anything that's currently considered a "victimless" crime should not be illegal under this system. The only things that should be illegal are those that interfere with someone else's right to live the way that they want. In other words, to quote the old adage, "the right to swing my fist ends at the other person's face." The reason for this almost complete social freedom is because any restriction could lead to rebellion, as seen in countries like Libya and Tunisia.

Finally, concerning the actual setup of the government, it is far too easy for politicians to counteract social, intellectual, and economic progress. Politicians actually care very little about improving their nation; rather, they care more about defeating their opponents than anything. It is therefore in the best interests of the people that the government should not be controlled by politicians, but by a series of think tanks, each with its own specialized area of thought (economics, for example). These think tanks would research the best possible actions for the nation to take to ensure prosperity and freedom. For example, if the capitalist system fails, another system should be invented to replace it - one that is not ruled by the belief system of a political party, but one that actually has been theorized to work.

So that's basically a rough draft of my ideology. Any pointers would be appreciated.


image


Accelerationism is the notion that rather than halting the onslaught of capital, it is best to exacerbate its processes to bring forth its inner contradictions and thereby hasten its destruction. As a radical act, the genesis of this idea stretches back to Marx [1] and continues through Lyotard’s Libidinal Economy, Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus, and Nick Land’s cybertechnics. I will be focusing largely on Land’s formulation of this perspective, it being among the more recent, and one whose uniquely anti-humanist features I find myself more sympathetic to, particularly because they disrupt the problematic formulation of the subject.

The significant difference between Land’s conception of capital, and that of Deleuze and Guattari, whom his work is explicitly indebted to, is the focus on a negative, or anti-vitalist impulse within the mechanism of capital itself. Rather than re-affirming a kind of Hegelian capitalist subject, Land’s impulse is to move towards further and further desubjectivization and away from the elan of capital as a constructive force. As Ray Brassier details in his excellent critique of Land’s thought:

What Land proposed to retain from Kant was the emphasis on the transcendental efficacy of synthesis, the primacy of transcendental synthesis, but no longer as the synthesis of empirical items, objects of experience anchored in a constituting subject. It’s the self-synthesising potency of what he called intensive materiality. This becomes the key term. It’s a brilliant explication of the logical operation that Deleuze and Guattari carry out vis-a-vis Kantianism in Anti-Oedipus. Matter is nothing but machinic production, self-differentiation, and the fundamental binary that organizes this materialist metaphysics is that between intensive materiality, which he identifies with the body without organs, and death, this moment of absolute indifference as absolute difference. [2]

image

Comments

Sign In or Register to comment.