What is Communitarianism?

[kandrathe]

I mentioned "Agenda 21" in Meat's socialism thread, but this topic deserves it's own discussion. I think the words, "communism", "socialism", "fascism", "capitalism" are from a 20th century lexicon. These are words that we all understand and have programmed reactions for or against. New ideas inspire new words. New words for a new world order.

Former President Bill Clinton recently said,

"[W]e're now in a position to begin again," he said. "It's not a leftward movement. It's a forward, communitarian movement." Communitarianism is a movement that considers individualism an impediment to society uniformly adopting values the movement considers appropriate, including authoritarian gun control. For example, the Communitarian Network platform states "there is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies." Former President Bill Clinton quoted 2/6/09 by NRA-ILA

What is the Communitarian Network and why is former Prez. Bill Clinton touting them? I would guess then that Hillary, and other progressives also are embracing this Communitarian movement of Dr. Amitai Etzioni at George Washington University.

So, Meat, maybe "socialism" is the wrong word for a modern world.

[librarian]

Heiho,

I've checked the Homepage, and because it's very vague i've done a quick search which revealed this little gem:

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communitarian/niki.htm

Since it gives tons of information and links it will need some time to digest.
The tendencies of especially the US, but also all 'western regimes' to either misunderstand or discredit (or both, yay) the theories of socialism and communism first leads to the impression that some folks just want to find a new bottle for old wine, extracting some of the better ideas of those isms without the 20th century connotations you've mentioned.

OTOH they mention Tony Blair

The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society (book reviews) by John Fonte, National Review, March 10, 1997: "THERE is no doubt that the philosophical outlook called communitarianism has influenced politics in the West. Some of its major tenets have been advanced by Bill Clinton in America and Tony Blair in Britain. Described by its promoters as a "movement" (it's not: it has no popular support or mass membership), communitarianism is a public philosophy developed by a small coterie of academics who have attempted to recast American liberal-Left and European social-democratic ideologies into a new "centrist" mold."

They could as well mention Ronald Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, Gerhard Schroeder (former german chancellor) or Angela Merkel (current german chancellor) as supporters, with the heavy indication that in fact the somewhat burnt words of ordoliberalism/neoliberalism should be replaced with some new bottle for old wine. And everything will be continued downstairs which began to dominate politics about 20 years ago. Back to the roots, Ancient greek 'democracy' to the front.

As said, lots of material to digest, needs time.

[kandrathe]

As said, lots of material to digest, needs time.

Yes, me too. It's clear though that at least in the US, both democrats and republicans have embraced communitarianism to some degree. So, that feeling that I always have in politics, that there are no choices (or only bad choices) has a basis, and its foundation is a philosophy that is being embraced by the people who govern us. This term, communitarianism, has only been around for about a decade. Writing about it has been incidental up until lately, and those who are against it have been labeled as "conspiracy theorists".

For Republicans its the "kinder gentler nation", the "compassionate conservatism", and the reality that under the eight years of Bush we saw the largest of expansion of government since FDR. That was, until they passed the stimulus bill last week, which did in a month what Bush took years to do. This is a big topic, a global topic, and it affects the EU as much as it does the USA.

For example, I can look at Agenda 21, chapter 19 and see directly the genesis of the CPSIA (along with the much publicized "China" lead incidents of 2006). Which then makes you wonder about the crackpots who makes claims that we are manipulated by a collusion of the government/industry/press. Could it be that in order to have a need to justify the CPSIA, the government needed the press to report on "lead paint" incidents blaming China? Rather than the CPSIA being a response to those incidents, could it be that the solution was ready and waiting for a problem?

9/11 is another example. We all know, and it is well documented in the Neocon's letters to then Pres. Bill Clinton that Iraq was a target well before Bush came to power. The Iraq war was a "solution in the can", awaiting a justification for revealing it at a time when it would be accepted (and then just barely). At that time (when it really mattered), almost everyone was "for" war against Iraq. It was only then later, to maintain the facade of choice that sides were drawn. Maybe I'm just being suspicious. Perhaps we are being set up again for the next justification for releasing the next solution which has already been scripted.

[Jester]

I've checked the Homepage, and because it's very vague i've done a quick search which revealed this little gem...

Gem is about the right word for it.

These guys are full on lunatics.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Gem is about the right word for it. These guys are full on lunatics.

Like I said, there are many who are labeled as "Conspiracy Theorists", and in this case for good reason. Anytime you go mucking about in Hegelian Dialects, you are wading near the lunatic fringe anyway. Niki Raapana does seem to have rational arguments most of the time, although I'm not sure why Kjos has a page for her. Her site is the ACL (Anti-Communitarian League), which is described by Source Watch as "The Anti-Communitarian League (ACL) presents grassroots opposition research and analysis of the Ultimate Third Way using American constitutional perspectives on a wide range of topics influenced by communitarian thinkers. Heavily referenced site with over 10,000 exit links to direct sources. The ACL's controversial and undisputed manifesto, What Is the Hegelian Dialectic? and The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking, suggests the philisophical communitarian platform directly descends from the Hegelian dialectic. Dismissed by many as a conspiracy theory site for its inclusion of the most taboo topics of the 21st century, including Zionism, communism, and Freemasonry. According to the ACL these topics are all directly connected to the development of modern global communitarianism."

I've been playing HL2 a bit, and this stuff sounds eerily similar to what Dr. Wallace Breen is saying on the public monitors. The rights of the collective outweigh the rights of the individual.

[Chaerophon]

I mentioned "Agenda 21" in Meat's socialism thread, but this topic deserves it's own discussion. I think the words, "communism", "socialism", "fascism", "capitalism" are from a 20th century lexicon. These are words that we all understand and have programmed reactions for or against. New ideas inspire new words. New words for a new world order.

Former President Bill Clinton recently said,What is the Communitarian Network and why is former Prez. Bill Clinton touting them? I would guess then that Hillary, and other progressives also are embracing this Communitarian movement of Dr. Amitai Etzioni at George Washington University.

So, Meat, maybe "socialism" is the wrong word for a modern world.

Kandrathe,

What you're describing is a bastardized appropriation of the term. For its philosophical origins, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tay...ilosopher), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sandel, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Walzer. The position was essentially a response to Rawlsian liberalism in the late-'80's/early-'90's arguing that Rawls and his followers relied on an objectionable notion of the "unencumbered self" in advocating a set of universal principles for just societies. Instead, they suggested that each society is made up of individuals, living in common, who understand the world through some more or less "thick" cultural filter and that it is preposterous to propose a set of precepts that are "just for all societies". Rawlsian liberals (rightly) responded that their views did not rely on any idea of a "separation" of individuals from their ethical predispositions. Rather, they sought to demonstrate the importance of the idea that individuals should have the right to choose their ethical attachments, and that this entailed a state that was "neutral" in the sense that it did not openly impose a shared national culture, but preserved the ability of individuals to freely choose when it came to their most important attachments relating to conceptions of their "highest good". Of course, this is something of a comprehensive ethical view in its own right as it implies institutional constraints on the ability of groups to prevent their members from leaving - not something I personally have a problem with, but some claim that civic education guided by such precepts would ultimately serve to undermine culturally particular practices.

Anyways, I would hate to see these guys associated with political communitarianism of the kind you're describing. In fact, in many ways, I think there's an element of communitarianism in your own views: if I've read you right over the years, you seem to think that libertarian rights are in some sense "quintessentially American" and part of the shared ethical heritage of America. If part of your reason for believing in such rights is fundamentally cultural and not entirely based on a natural law conception of rights, then there's an element of communitarianism in your own thought.

Never a fan of seeing philosophical terms co-opted, distorted, and raised as bogeymen like that, so I thought I'd sound off.

Hope all's well with you and everyone else at the lounge.

[kandrathe]

Anyways, I would hate to see these guys associated with political communitarianism of the kind you're describing. In fact, in many ways, I think there's an element of communitarianism in your own views: if I've read you right over the years, you seem to think that libertarian rights are in some sense "quintessentially American" and part of the shared ethical heritage of America. If part of your reason for believing in such rights is fundamentally cultural and not entirely based on a natural law conception of rights, then there's an element of communitarianism in your own thought.

I agree, Taylor, Sandel and Walzer approach communitarianism from a philosophical discipline and I respect their work.

What I find concerning is the increasing use of communitarian principles in justifying the use of force ( the laws of the State) in implementing the common good at the expense of individual liberty. You are correct that I have a communitarian nature, and that I value community and I value things that contribute to the common good. I am a volunteer in many community activities, and pretty active in insuring that my community functions well. I fall short of this Neo-communitarian moniker however in seeing the State as an instrument of coercing that good at the expense of individual liberty. I am also against any State interest in the "thousand points of light" by the way. What I am railing against is the emergence again of the elite, or the authoritarians who would do that thinking for us rather than depend upon the people. There is an agenda to which Mr. Clinton referred, and it is a blueprint for remaking our society in a way that treats individual liberty as something much different than what it meant to our nations founders.

[Jester]

Like I said, there are many who are labeled as "Conspiracy Theorists", and in this case for good reason. Anytime you go mucking about in Hegelian Dialects, you are wading near the lunatic fringe anyway. Niki Raapana does seem to have rational arguments most of the time, although I'm not sure why Kjos has a page for her. Her site is the ACL (Anti-Communitarian League), which is described by Source Watch as "The Anti-Communitarian League (ACL) presents grassroots opposition research and analysis of the Ultimate Third Way using American constitutional perspectives on a wide range of topics influenced by communitarian thinkers. Heavily referenced site with over 10,000 exit links to direct sources. The ACL's controversial and undisputed manifesto, What Is the Hegelian Dialectic? and The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking, suggests the philisophical communitarian platform directly descends from the Hegelian dialectic. Dismissed by many as a conspiracy theory site for its inclusion of the most taboo topics of the 21st century, including Zionism, communism, and Freemasonry. According to the ACL these topics are all directly connected to the development of modern global communitarianism."

So, in other words, they wear tinfoil hats.

-Jester

[Jester]

Now that you mention it, I do recall my political philosophy prof, who did his thesis on Communitarianism, offering a somewhat offhand eye-rolling comment about some groups in the states that have taken the term in strange directions.

This must be them.

-Jester

[librarian]

Heiho,

Now that you mention it, I do recall my political philosophy prof, who did his thesis on Communitarianism, offering a somewhat offhand eye-rolling comment about some groups in the states that have taken the term in strange directions.

This must be them.

you may've seen already that communitarism is one of those buzzwords which may be of use to anyone to express anything. Indeed even the almighty wikipedia * will show you that the term goes at least back to 19th century, where some heavy religious influence was dominant to it. So no surprise in finding it at the homepage of some lunatics (not sure if crossroads.to is connected to crossroads movement / CoC, but it wouldn't be surprising either).
Still the linked subsite gives tons of information in different directions, which is at least more worth than the original homepage of the Communitarian Network, which is just a brief collection of vague ideas; and again, anyone can find himself comfortable with those due to their vagueness. It is noteable that wording is more eliticist, so folks with academical background may feel comfortable first. But when push comes to shove, the wording doesn't mean anything.
Like, you know, 'change' for <strike>ordinary</strike> <edit> common </edit> people.







* which I refuse to cite without the disclaimer that anything of social relevance will need a full analysis of the editing history and talk section before taking for granted just because of being written in wikipedia
That's my oldschool point of recherche. If I'm browsing through sources provided by crossroads.to I always remember the origin. Browsing through sources provided by wikipedia tends to neglect the editors of a given wikipedia article. Which doesn't matter if it's just some geek stuff like the color of a StarTrek staff member's shirt in a given scene, and mostly doesn't matter in science stuff (as long as Bible Belt buttheads and other religious hardcore fundamentalists stay out). It always matters in social/political/religious stuff.

[Jester]

It always matters in social/political/religious stuff.

... even when you're not on Wikipedia. B)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

... even when you're not on Wikipedia. B)-Jester

My question still remains. Why is former Pres. Bill Clinton citing the Communitarian Networks agenda?

[Jester]

My question still remains. Why is former Pres. Bill Clinton citing the Communitarian Networks agenda?

All Clinton did was say that the movement towards stronger gun controls was not so much a movement "leftward" as much as a movement "forward, a communitarian movement".

The rest of the dots have been provided, and then connected, by the NRA, not by Clinton. So, it isn't really Clinton here who is citing the "Communitarian Networks agenda," but rather, his opponents.

I have no doubt Clinton has more sympathy for (and support from) the Communitarian Network than the NRA, but what they have quoted him as saying sounds more like fuzzy Clinton weaselspeak than an endorsement of a political agenda. Classic "third way" nonsense, trying to sound post-partisan by invoking terms that nobody really understands, in order to distance oneself from the label of the "left".

-Jester

[kandrathe]

All Clinton did was say that the movement towards stronger gun controls was not so much a movement "leftward" as much as a movement "forward, a communitarian movement".

The rest of the dots have been provided, and then connected, by the NRA, not by Clinton. So, it isn't really Clinton here who is citing the "Communitarian Networks agenda," but rather, his opponents.

I have no doubt Clinton has more sympathy for (and support from) the Communitarian Network than the NRA, but what they have quoted him as saying sounds more like fuzzy Clinton weaselspeak than an endorsement of a political agenda. Classic "third way" nonsense, trying to sound post-partisan by invoking terms that nobody really understands, in order to distance oneself from the label of the "left".

There are many dots though Jester surrounding the Clinton's and Mr. Gore for that matter. From "It Takes a Village", to Bill's speeches and strong ties to GWU, to Bill giving the United States National Humanities Medal to Robert N. Bellah, to Americorps. The Boston Globe ran a story on May 22, 1993, "Communitarianism: Is Clinton a convert?" written by Michael Kranish, Globe Staff.

So, I'm probably not asking anything that hasn't been asked before by people who know more about politics than I do.

Clinton's AmeriCorps Values is an article by Stanford's Hoover Institution of War, Revolution and Peace by John P. Walters discussing how then President Clinton misunderstood citizenship, individual rights and responsibilities.

I found another site, The National Association of Scholars, with "THE COMMUNITARIAN RESIDENCE LIFE MOVEMENT" by Thomas Wood again with lots of links and information. All of which I need to digest.

This jumped out at me,

“Communitarianism” Finds Favor by Dana Milbank, The Washington Post

February 1, 2001, Thursday, Final Edition SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A01

The problem, some Bush advisers and friends say, is that conventional political definitions do not adequately explain what the president is trying to do. His actions have less to do with the left vs. right, they say, than with his embrace of many of the ideas contained in the movement known as "communitarianism," which places the importance of society ahead of the unfettered rights of the individual.

"This is the ultimate Third Way," said Don Eberly, an adviser in the Bush White House, using a favorite phrase of President Bill Clinton, who also sought, largely unsuccessfully, to redefine the debate with an alternative to the liberal-conservative conflict. "The debate in this town the last eight years was how to forge a compromise on the role of the state and the market. This is a new way to rethink social policy: a major reigniting of interest in the social sector."

"Communitarianism," or "civil society" thinking (the two have similar meanings) has many interpretations, but at its center is a notion that years of celebrating individual freedom have weakened the bonds of community and that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the interests of society as a whole. Inherent in the philosophy is a return to values and morality, which, the school of thought believes, can best be fostered by community organizations. "We need to connect with one another. We've got to move a little more in the direction of community in the balance between community and the individual," said Robert D. Putnam of Harvard University, a leading communitarian thinker.

I'm ready to say that this Neo-Communitarian "Third Way" is a global philosophical elitist (pseudo-authoritarian) movement which is contrary to what we traditionally know as liberty, or at least that described by the framers of our Constitution. While not quite the kind of movement to which one joins, and carries a membership card, it still seems to be spawned from the halls of academia as an alternative to our traditionally held value of the primacy of individual liberty. Presidents from Carter forward have embraced this "Third Way" and have eroded personal liberty and greatly increased the presence of the Federal Government as an instrument of our society. So much so, that whenever anything goes wrong we immediately turn to Washington to solve our problems, and our President claims that government is the only solution. Chilling. The terms Democrat and Republican have become meaningless within the framework of this new philosophy, which explains why we need additional adjectives to describe them (e.g. Blue Dog Democrat, Neo-Con, RINO, Progressive). Compare the record of any Blue Dog Democrat to Republican Olympia Snow and you will know what I mean. There is a place where the big tents of our political parties overlap, which in essence means there is no party differentiation anymore. Yes, candidates have different stances on different issues, although they don't always vote according to their stated beliefs either.

For me, as a libertarian, I find federal or State intervention in "community" misplaced and wasteful at best, and authoritarian at worst. This article, Libertarianism as Communitarianism By Daniel B. Klein, December 1994 summarizes my opinion pretty well, "The only universal social values that ought to be upheld by the state are respect for just laws." For a good read relating to my concerns, try The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice by Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton

[Jester]

If the concept is that Democrats have a more community-centric view of citizenship, liberty, and the role of the state than Libertarians do, and therefore are more sympathetic to contemporary developments in political philosophy that emphasize those aspects, then that would be correct, but definitely not news.

If the idea is that there is a vast left wing conspiracy centered around the shadowy ideology of Communitarianism, then I think what I've seen falls way, way short of the mark.

-Jester

Speaking of Not News, have you noticed that all this stuff seems a bit... dated? Like, from Clinton's first term?

Afterthought: It doesn't sound like the rather neutrally-named "National Association of Scholars" has a particularily scholarly outlook when it comes to the issue of Communitarianism...

[kandrathe]

If the concept is that Democrats have a more community-centric view of citizenship, liberty, and the role of the state than Libertarians do, and therefore are more sympathetic to contemporary developments in political philosophy that emphasize those aspects, then that would be correct, but definitely not news.

Yes, I agree it is not news. I guess what is new to me is the coalescing of political thought from Democrat to Republican around this "Third Way" which has become a destructive force for individual liberty. My father was a union Blue Dog democrat, and my mother was a Eisenhower Republican. Their common politic bond was on the rights and responsibilities of the individual. This third way is contrary to any politics I knew growing up.

If the idea is that there is a vast left wing conspiracy centered around the shadowy ideology of Communitarianism, then I think what I've seen falls way, way short of the mark.

Right. There is no conspiracy. It is out in the open, at least in the halls of academia and permeating the worlds governments and the UN. Being that people do not outright label themselves as "Communitarians", but rather chose non-descriptive party labels like Democrat or Repuplican makes opposing their ideologies more difficult. People vote along party lines thinking, "Democrats stand for this which I'm for, and Republican stand for this, which I'm against." When that line of thinking is total crap, then what we have is a deluded electorate and a political party system which has so commingled itself as to become meaningless.

Speaking of Not News, have you noticed that all this stuff seems a bit... dated? Like, from Clinton's first term?

Well, I was specifically looking at Clinton, so that is why much of what I've posted is dated. Here is something more recent from Dr. Etzioni (the Father of Neo-Communitarianism) about Obama on the Huffy post.

[kandrathe]

So, in other words, they wear tinfoil hats.

Not really. It might be convenient to dismiss them as kooks. For example, they cited before their discussions of the role if Freemasonry in shaping American political thought, "Today freemasonry and communism are both absolutely taboo political topics; speaking about the communists or the freemasons, as if they really exist, will get the writer condemmed as a conspiracy theorist (Hofstadter 1964). "

I'm not sure I agree with their analysis and conclusions, but to deny that the philosophies of (pro or anti) freemasonry, communism, and Zionism had an influence in American political thought and the transformation of the USA from colonial times to the present day is deluded as well. I mean even today, how important is AIPAC in American middle eastern politics?

[Jester]

Yes, I agree it is not news. I guess what is new to me is the coalescing of political thought from Democrat to Republican around this "Third Way" which has become a destructive force for individual liberty. My father was a union Blue Dog democrat, and my mother was a Eisenhower Republican. Their common politic bond was on the rights and responsibilities of the individual. This third way is contrary to any politics I knew growing up.

Perhaps, but it's hardly new politics on any global standard. The distinction between individualist and collectivist politics is as old as the hills. To give just one analysis, Samuel Beer's classic book "British Politics in the Collectivist Age" describes exactly this issue, but at a century's remove. It is at least as old as the Roman Republic, and probably much older.

Right. There is no conspiracy. It is out in the open, at least in the halls of academia and permeating the worlds governments and the UN. Being that people do not outright label themselves as "Communitarians", but rather chose non-descriptive party labels like Democrat or Repuplican makes opposing their ideologies more difficult. People vote along party lines thinking, "Democrats stand for this which I'm for, and Republican stand for this, which I'm against." When that line of thinking is total crap, then what we have is a deluded electorate and a political party system which has so commingled itself as to become meaningless.

That might have made some quantity of sense from, say, 1988 to 2001, but the last 7 years of Bush's term have surely taught us that, whatever else may be true, the two parties do not have the same vision for the US in some very, very important respects. Not least, this is true because Bush demonstrated (once "compassionate conservatism" had been buried in a shallow grave on Sept. 12, 2001) that he and his administration were about as Communitarian as the Chinese Communist Party are Anarchist.

Well, I was specifically looking at Clinton, so that is why much of what I've posted is dated. Here is something more recent from Dr. Etzioni (the Father of Neo-Communitarianism) about Obama on the Huffy post.

I don't think it's particularly surprising or relevant that the self-proclaimed leader of this movement both sees his own ideas in the see-what-you-want-to-see president, and also wants to publicly connect himself and his movement with the most popular political figure since Reagan. Whether Obama gives two figs for this fruit or not, I have no idea. I can't tell anything from Etzioni, except that he is very fond of his own ideas.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Perhaps, but it's hardly new politics on any global standard. The distinction between individualist and collectivist politics is as old as the hills. To give just one analysis, Samuel Beer's classic book "British Politics in the Collectivist Age" describes exactly this issue, but at a century's remove. It is at least as old as the Roman Republic, and probably much older.

Probably true. I studied computer science, not political science, so some of this is still a surprise to me.

That might have made some quantity of sense from, say, 1988 to 2001, but the last 7 years of Bush's term have surely taught us that, whatever else may be true, the two parties do not have the same vision for the US in some very, very important respects. Not least, this is true because Bush demonstrated (once "compassionate conservatism" had been buried in a shallow grave on Sept. 12, 2001) that he and his administration were about as Communitarian as the Chinese Communist Party are Anarchist.

I would disagree only that the Bush administration focus on "Common Good" or his perversion of Communitarianism extended into pre-emptive war and domestic spying. Attacks on liberty from the right are just as chilling as psuedo-collectivism from the left.

I don't think it's particularly surprising or relevant that the self-proclaimed leader of this movement both sees his own ideas in the see-what-you-want-to-see president, and also wants to publicly connect himself and his movement with the most popular political figure since Reagan. Whether Obama gives two figs for this fruit or not, I have no idea. I can't tell anything from Etzioni, except that he is very fond of his own ideas.

Lol. Etzioni is definitely a political talking head, and I too am unclear who his friends might be and how close he might be to pulling on the strings of power. His ideas, while provocative, might make him political kryptonite.

[Jester]

I would disagree only that the Bush administration focus on "Common Good" or his perversion of Communitarianism extended into pre-emptive war and domestic spying. Attacks on liberty from the right are just as chilling as psuedo-collectivism from the left.

I can't say I see Bush's doctrines post-2001 as an extension of the "compassionate conservative" doctrine at all. What seems much more fitting to me is that the airy-fairy centrist-sounding "compassionate" meme was essentially an advertising scheme to return to Reagan-era politics. Once 9/11 "changed everything", the facade became entirely redundant, or even a liability, and the neoconservative hawks moved into the limelight. The public, by that point, had become much less interested in post-partisan huggy-feel-good crap, and much more interested in muscular, testosterone-laden "with us or against us" governance. The erosion of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under the PATRIOT act were justified entirely on the second philosophy, not the first.

And, and I'm sure you could guess, I certainly do not agree that locking people up without Habeas Corpus, violating privacy through wiretapping and illegal search and seizure, or kissing the Geneva Conventions goodbye are in any sense "just as chilling" as some milquetoast suggestions that maybe the individual is not the first, last and only concept in liberty.

-Jester