David Cameron on Morrissey

[Anaesthesine]

It often seems somewhat silly to continue these conversations after a few days away, when the thread has grown cold, but your comments are so thoughtful and well-informed that I'm going to do it anyway.

War is a political tool whether we like it or not. I simply don't agree that war should be avoided at all costs.

If everyone avoided war at all costs, we wouldn't have any war. Of course, that will probably never happen, but it should happen. That is the point of the argument: a principled stance against war on everyone's part would result in peace. It is not realistic at this time, but it is a worthy goal.

Politics can be many different things, from petty self-enrichment to vast efforts to better the lot of mankind. But there is one thing that it is always, without exception, about: Power. No matter what you want to achieve, power represents the ability to achieve it. You need it for altruistic aims as much as for anything else. And, military force is in the end the ultimate power trump. It is the only thing that allows you to exercise physical control in the face of even complete opposition. It decides, in short, who has the remote control. Historically, it has served as the better part of the basis for political power. Hence, war isn't simply a moral problem or an oudated and questionable practice, it is a part of politics that can't simply be jettisoned. The capacity for organised violence will always be there, and it will always offer tempting options to states and people who have few others.

This is true - it cannot be argued with. As things stand now, ultimate power is achieved through organized violence. However (as you point out), violence is the option for states and people who have nothing else - no resources, no moral leadership capabilities, no wealth. War is the first resort of tyrants and weaklings - war is a result of failure by any other civilized means. War should always be viewed as such.

The point involved here is in my opinion an important one. In 1933, when Hitler came to power, Germany was disarmed and militarily helpless. By 1939, Germany had re-armed to superpower status. They wouldn't have had any chance to sustain a major war during those early years. Nor for that matter would Hitlers regime have had much chance to survive one politically - as late as the Munich crisis in 1938, the German army leadership were ready to depose him in a coup de etat rather than end up fighting the Western powers.

For most of the thirties, Hitler's Germany was acutely vulnerable. What enabled Hitler to nevertheless achieve a string of bloodless conquests was the fact that the democracies embraced exactly the philosophy you argue for: They were more interested in avoiding war with Germany than they were in anything else, and acted accordingly. And here's the rub - without any credible implicit threat of war, their non-violent tools also became meaningless. Political pressure or diplomatic protests or League of Nations resolutions became just words that Hitler could choose to simply ignore, which he did. Hence, by treating war as something that must be avoided at all costs, the democracies robbed themselves of any capacity they might have had to prevent one.

This is a perfect example of a "just war," And it does lead inevitably to:

I know that this is starting to look like an argument for the Iraq war by proxy, which it isn't. The point is, again, that if you refuse to consider military force a political tool, you prevent yourself from using it as one, which again risks increasing the likelihood of what you want to avoid.

Ah, but the Iraq war is a great example of the consequences of the "just war" argument, played out in real-time, in our lifetimes. The results are an unmitigated failure.

The American neoconservative version of preemptive war as political tool has been a disaster in terms of lives lost and uprooted, wealth squandered, a culture ransacked, and the credibility and moral standing of the aggressor (the United States of America) being completely trashed. In addition, (and most importantly from a political perspective), the preemptive war strategy allowed Iran (the greater threat) to prevail.

We now face the very scenario we were trying to avoid: a belligerent state arming itself with nuclear capabilities. We find ourselves in a position roughly analogous to the democratic states in the mid 1930s due (in part) to our misguided belief that strategic preemptive war is the answer to our problems.

Okay, I agree different interpretations are possible. But it's hard to escape the sense that it paints a vision of bliss that is based on nobody caring much anymore about anything other than comfort and a sense of community, which is the exact essence of Nietzsche's last man. "Nothing to kill or die for". Well, I can imagine a certain number of things that I actually think is well worth dying for, and I consider it an important measure of their worth that I (and others) am.

There are things that I think are well worth dying for as well. However, I don't want to have to kill and die for the things I love and hold dear. Fighting and dying is always a bad thing. I spent some of my formative years as a child on military bases, and members of my family are military lifers. Even they agree that war is hell.

As an actual vision of humanity and its direction, an additional problem of course is that it's simply fundamentally disconnected from the basic nature of reality and mankind, which is annoying enough in itself when it is pursued to such extreme lengths that it lapses into escapism. The world doesn't work like that. People don't work like that. Those aren't the real issues. There generally isn't really, in point of fact, that many things who unite us, globally speaking.

A) That's why Lennon said that he's a dreamer, and so is everyone else who agrees with him. Humanity's reach should always exceed its grasp.

B) I disagree, there are many more things that unite humans than divide us. You almost contradict yourself in the next paragraph:

That being said, on reflection I must grumblingly admit that it does broadly stake out the direction in which we have been trying to move for the last few decades, and that I wholeheartedly agree with. The more focus there is around the world on common interest rather than points of conflict, the better it is. The more peace, the less war, the better. Maybe I'm just not very disposed to utopianism?

 

[Qvist]

It often seems somewhat silly to continue these conversations after a few days away, when the thread has grown cold, but your comments are so thoughtful and well-informed that I'm going to do it anyway.

Why not, as long as we're enjoying ourselves?

If everyone avoided war at all costs, we wouldn't have any war. Of course, that will probably never happen, but it should happen. That is the point of the argument: a principled stance against war on everyone's part would result in peace. It is not realistic at this time, but it is a worthy goal.

There are two problems here though. One, none of us is everybody. And as long as sovereign states exist, a part of the options each of them will have is military means. There will always be a possibility that some of them will use that option, for reasons they consider sufficient - there has never yet in the history of mankind been any principled stance that everyone subscribed to. And preventing them from doing so rather involves similar means, or the threat of them. Two, is it really best to always avoid war under any conceivable circumstances? Such as when a genocide is being perpetrated, to name but one example?

This is true - it cannot be argued with. As things stand now, ultimate power is achieved through organized violence.

Or rather, organised violence is ultimate power, by its nature and in itself. There are simply no effective means of stopping those who are capable and willing to wield it in superior strength. You can make it uncomfortable enough to make the stronger part decide that it's no longer worth it, as the vietnamese did to you some decades ago, but you can't actually stop them if they're determined not to be stopped. Non-violent opposition unfortunately doesn't have a great track record, so far.

However (as you point out), violence is the option for states and people who have nothing else - no resources, no moral leadership capabilities, no wealth. War is the first resort of tyrants and weaklings - war is a result of failure by any other civilized means. War should always be viewed as such.

Well, it seems to be an option for more kinds of states than that. But in essence I agree with your point - aims that are achievable with other means should always be pursued by other means. And even if they require war, it is almost always better to simply accept that they won't be achieved than to fight.

Ah, but the Iraq war is a great example of the consequences of the "just war" argument, played out in real-time, in our lifetimes. The results are an unmitigated failure.

Of course. The Iraq war was simply a bad idea, from almost any angle. Just because it is possible to justify a given war as just doesn't neccessarily mean that every war for which that argument is invoked is either just, neccessary, well-conceived, successful or prudent. But it's a case of misapplication rather than of any fault of the general principle. There are no absolutes. Each case is an issue that needs to be considered on its own merits.

The American neoconservative version of preemptive war as political tool has been a disaster in terms of lives lost and uprooted, wealth squandered, a culture ransacked, and the credibility and moral standing of the aggressor (the United States of America) being completely trashed. In addition, (and most importantly from a political perspective), the preemptive war strategy allowed Iran (the greater threat) to prevail.

We now face the very scenario we were trying to avoid: a belligerent state arming itself with nuclear capabilities. We find ourselves in a position roughly analogous to the democratic states in the mid 1930s due (in part) to our misguided belief that strategic preemptive war is the answer to our problems.

I agree absolutely. It was a tragic doctrine. And it has left the US - and the West in general - a lot weaker today than we were ten years ago. In other words, it achieved the opposite of what it was supposed to achieve. That's what happens when you leave matters to think-tank ideologists. The whole "War on terror" concept wasn't a great idea either. That amounts to defining aims that you have not achieved as long as there is anyone left who is potentially willing and able to carry out an act of terrorism. Talk about setting oneself up for failure.

There are things that I think are well worth dying for as well. However, I don't want to have to kill and die for the things I love and hold dear. Fighting and dying is always a bad thing. I spent some of my formative years as a child on military bases, and members of my family are military lifers. Even they agree that war is hell.

Excellent point well put. I'm starting to become a little embarrassed by my previous words about Imgagine - perhaps I was looking at it from an excessively Nietzschean angle. As much as I still love him, you do begin to realise over time that he didn't really have many good answers as soon as he was in the territory of human society, rather than in the sphere of the self-sufficient individual.

You almost contradict yourself in the next paragraph:

Not just almost. I know. I guess it's aesthetics colliding with intellect, a bit. In worldly affairs, I've long since grown tired of cynics who fancy themselves realists - as far as I can see, it is obvious that values plays a major role in how politics turn out, including in relations between states. But on the other hand I never could stomach a soppy lyric with obvious communal intent. Maybe it's a generational thing, what with growing up in the eighties and all that.

cheers

 

[Anaesthesine]

I think we're on the same wavelength, with a few quibbles:

Of course. The Iraq war was simply a bad idea, from almost any angle. Just because it is possible to justify a given war as just doesn't neccessarily mean that every war for which that argument is invoked is either just, neccessary, well-conceived, successful or prudent. But it's a case of misapplication rather than of any fault of the general principle. There are no absolutes. Each case is an issue that needs to be considered on its own merits.

Yes, but the American neocons are the only western political players I know of who approach war casually, and who agree that war is simply a political tool, as opposed to a disaster. Their ideology is part and parcel of a severely warped world view that eschews any form of diplomacy as a show of weakness. The type of political players who think of war as an acceptable "tool" are the types of players who usually have a problem assessing information objectively (as you pointed out). They tend to see the world as playing right into their hands, and they tend to be blind to the consequences of their actions.

Excellent point well put. I'm starting to become a little embarrassed by my previous words about Imgagine - perhaps I was looking at it from an excessively Nietzschean angle. As much as I still love him, you do begin to realise over time that he didn't really have many good answers as soon as he was in the territory of human society, rather than in the sphere of the self-sufficient individual.

When you say you still love "him," I assume you mean Nietzsche (and not Lennon). I love him too. How could anyone not love him? He was a staggering genius and, like all great philosophers, completely out of his gourd.

...I guess it's aesthetics colliding with intellect, a bit. In worldly affairs, I've long since grown tired of cynics who fancy themselves realists - as far as I can see, it is obvious that values plays a major role in how politics turn out, including in relations between states. But on the other hand I never could stomach a soppy lyric with obvious communal intent. Maybe it's a generational thing, what with growing up in the eighties and all that.

Dude, I was such a steel-toed little s**t-kicker in the eighties. I loathed anything that smacked of patchouli, sunflower seeds, Guatemalan textiles, sandals or supportive communal living. Hippies were the generation that blew it - a bunch of lazy, undisciplined stoners who let the revolution down.

Still, I always loved Lennon, and I was always profoundly moved by the tenacity with which he championed his ideas. The fact that a sitting US president feared him made him a true badass in my eyes.

I passed by Strawberry Fields in Central Park the other day, early on a beautiful Spring morning. I looked at that lovely mosaic "Imagine," and I wept.

 

[Bluebirds]

I couldn't care about Cameron's credentials as a Smiths fan but I do care that he's a Tory twat.

I posted this link in the other thread but if you want to stop the Tories getting in here's a guide to how to tactically vote in your area to try and prevent the Tories getting in.

http://www.theobverse.com/stopdave/

 

[Reelaround]

You wouldn't believe what popped through my letterbox today. A Royal Mail missive addressed to myself from the Labour Party. It contained nothing of worth. What it actually contained was endorsements from terribly rich and ultra trendy celebretities (no error), all with their pics and quotes for a better future with an unelected Prime Minister

Here is the list of rich people who don't have to worry about money, but who are obviously pumping mega bucks to GB

Ross Kemp

JK Rowling

Patrick Stewart

Sir Alex Ferguson

Jo Brand

Tony Robinson

Liz Dawn

Eddie Izzard

John Middleton (whoever he is)

Name and shame the people who are pumping money into a party who have already destroyed this country, and who originally declared uncontrolled immigration years ago just to piss off the Tories

 

[Bluebirds]

You wouldn't believe what popped through my letterbox today. A Royal Mail missive addressed to myself from the Labour Party. It contained nothing of worth. What it actually contained was endorsements from terribly rich and ultra trendy celebretities (no error), all with their pics and quotes for a better future with an unelected Prime Minister

Here is the list of rich people who don't have to worry about money, but who are obviously pumping mega bucks to GB

Ross Kemp

JK Rowling

Patrick Stewart

Sir Alex Ferguson

Jo Brand

Tony Robinson

Liz Dawn

Eddie Izzard

John Middleton (whoever he is)

Name and shame the people who are pumping money into a party who have already destroyed this country, and who originally declared uncontrolled immigration years ago just to piss off the Tories

Never fear cos when/if Dave the rave gets in Phil Collins will be moving back to the country. The man who sang songs about homeless folks and then promptly buggered off to Switzerland when he was asked to contribute a little more money in tax to stop such events.

And Simon Cowell the saviour of Haiti and Gary Barlow have already endorsed their support for Dave and the Tories as he's a genuine guy and understands ordinary folks.... oh and will give them tax breaks considering they're high earners.

And I do believe it was the recklessness of financiers and the banks that caused the global recession (admittedly fawned over by NuLabour deregulating the financial markets) and under the Tories I'm sure they'll be getting their fatcat salaries and bonuses scrutinised and put into offshore havens, whats the name of that Tory benefactor again who funds the Tories from his offshore tax haven in Belize? Ashcroft the tax dodger, thats him.

 

[Qvist]

And Simon Cowell the saviour of Haiti and Gary Barlow have already endorsed their support for Dave and the Tories as he's a genuine guy and understands ordinary folks....

If Simon Cowell has really publicly endorsed the Tories, he must be either stupid or a covert Labour supporter.

cheers

 

[Qvist]

I think we're on the same wavelength, with a few quibbles:

Yes, but the American neocons are the only western political players I know of who approach war casually, and who agree that war is simply a political tool, as opposed to a disaster. Their ideology is part and parcel of a severely warped world view that eschews any form of diplomacy as a show of weakness. The type of political players who think of war as an acceptable "tool" are the types of players who usually have a problem assessing information objectively (as you pointed out). They tend to see the world as playing right into their hands, and they tend to be blind to the consequences of their actions.

Well, it would probably be more accurate to say that American neocons are the only ones who speak of war as a political tool. Over the past 20 years, there's been another war against Iraq (following their invasion of Kuwait), one against Yugoslavia and a third is now in progress in Afghanistan - all of them with broad participation and support, at least within the community of Western states. All of them chosen as a specific response to specific problems. None of them unavoidable as such, but all of them cases where no other viable options existed given the aims. If you didn't want to simply live with a heavily armed dictator running amok in the region on which the world's energy supplies depended, the Iraqi Army had to be thrown out of Kuwait. If you weren't prepared to stand by and watch another round of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, Yugoslavia had to be confronted militarily. All other means had been tried for years, to no avail. Clearly, the use of war as a political tool is something that democratic states resort to with a certain regularity.

Which is not to say that US neocons just say what everybody else is thinking. Nobody (at least nobody else) approaches war casually, or see the use of diplomacy as a sign of weakness. On the contrary, the marrow bone reflex pretty much everywhere is to rely on other means as much as possible. I remember, prior to the Iraq war, one puzzled researcher writing: "Either these people know something I don't, or they're a bunch of idiots". No further comment.

When you say you still love "him," I assume you mean Nietzsche (and not Lennon). I love him too. How could anyone not love him? He was a staggering genius and, like all great philosophers, completely out of his gourd.

Indeed.

Dude, I was such a steel-toed little s**t-kicker in the eighties. I loathed anything that smacked of patchouli, sunflower seeds, Guatemalan textiles, sandals or supportive communal living. Hippies were the generation that blew it - a bunch of lazy, undisciplined stoners who let the revolution down.

Still, I always loved Lennon, and I was always profoundly moved by the tenacity with which he championed his ideas. The fact that a sitting US president feared him made him a true badass in my eyes.

I passed by Strawberry Fields in Central Park the other day, early on a beautiful Spring morning. I looked at that lovely mosaic "Imagine," and I wept.

Ah, but you hadn't given up on the revolution. I saw the malady as running deeper, extending to the core ideas of the 70s as such. My response, like that of many others, was a reaffirmation of what you might broadly call traditional Western liberal values. When I looked around in the world, it seemed obvious to me that the threat against what I understood as basic principles of human value was coming from the same end of the spectrum as Lennon belonged to, with half my own continent subjugated under an imposed ideological dictatorship and the Cambodian genocide a recent occurrence. It didn't escape my attention that the same people who were out in the streets protesting US bombing in Cambodia in the early 70s were conspicuously absent when Pol Pot murdered half his country a few years later. Nor that when the Soviet Union became unpalatable after 1968, our radicals simply went in search of new communist utopias to embrace, and found them in China, Cambodia and Albania. Nobody seemed even remotely interested in the only fairly moderate and peaceful communist system around, Yugoslavia. The people using words like "revolution" were the same ones who wrote panegyrics to the cultural revolution and actually defended Pol Pot in public. I knew of course that there was a vast difference between Lennon-style peaceniks and the Soviet Union or Pol Pot, but I simply fundamentally distrusted left wing instincts. "Left wing" in a european context being, as you know, actual genuine socialists.

cheers

 

[Anaesthesine]

We are wandering waaaaay off-topic.

Well, it would probably be more accurate to say that American neocons are the only ones who speak of war as a political tool. Over the past 20 years, there's been another war against Iraq (following their invasion of Kuwait), one against Yugoslavia and a third is now in progress in Afghanistan - all of them with broad participation and support, at least within the community of Western states. All of them chosen as a specific response to specific problems. None of them unavoidable as such, but all of them cases where no other viable options existed given the aims. If you didn't want to simply live with a heavily armed dictator running amok in the region on which the world's energy supplies depended, the Iraqi Army had to be thrown out of Kuwait. If you weren't prepared to stand by and watch another round of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, Yugoslavia had to be confronted militarily. All other means had been tried for years, to no avail. Clearly, the use of war as a political tool is something that democratic states resort to with a certain regularity.

Yes, but all of these are not unilateral preemptive wars on the part of the United States, which is part of the neocon doctrine (a right-wing doctrine, might I add). The above are "justified" wars. Iraq invaded Kuwait, which was an act of war in itself, and universally condemned as such. Coalition action was taken. The wars in the Balkans were a response to genocide and ethnic cleansing which was also universally condemned, and every other avenue for resolution was explored. I remember the Dayton Accords. What we are discussing is the casual acceptance of violence as just another tool, not the reluctant acceptance of war as the last resort.

Which is not to say that US neocons just say what everybody else is thinking. Nobody (at least nobody else) approaches war casually, or see the use of diplomacy as a sign of weakness. On the contrary, the marrow bone reflex pretty much everywhere is to rely on other means as much as possible. I remember, prior to the Iraq war, one puzzled researcher writing: "Either these people know something I don't, or they're a bunch of idiots". No further comment.

Yes, that is the point I'm making. Everyone in the civilized world abhors (or at least publicly abhors) war and violence as de facto political tools.

I had family in military intelligence - very high up. I probably shouldn't say more than that here (or anywhere, really ). I heard stories that would make your heart stop beating dead in your chest. Thanks be to heaven that the neocons are not in charge at this moment - it would be the end of us. When you casually embrace war as a political tool, you leave all rationality behind.

Ah, but you hadn't given up on the revolution. I saw the malady as running deeper, extending to the core ideas of the 70s as such. My response, like that of many others, was a reaffirmation of what you might broadly call traditional Western liberal values. When I looked around in the world, it seemed obvious to me that the threat against what I understood as basic principles of human value was coming from the same end of the spectrum as Lennon belonged to, with half my own continent subjugated under an imposed ideological dictatorship and the Cambodian genocide a recent occurrence. It didn't escape my attention that the same people who were out in the streets protesting US bombing in Cambodia in the early 70s were conspicuously absent when Pol Pot murdered half his country a few years later.

Wow, that is a serious charge. Pol Pot wasn't a democratic leftist dedicated to enlightenment values, he was an insane dictator who carried out the most extreme form of demented social-engineering, and who murdered and persecuted intellectuals as well as various ethnic minorities. There's no way any rational leftist movement could ever embrace anything that insane. What you are describing are extremists who exist on both sides of the spectrum. I would posit that the principles of non-violence are universal: here in the US non-violence has been embraced principally by the left, but there are those on the right who are principally non-violent as well. Those folks seldom hold any political power, unfortunately.

Nor that when the Soviet Union became unpalatable after 1968, our radicals simply went in search of new communist utopias to embrace, and found them in China, Cambodia and Albania. Nobody seemed even remotely interested in the only fairly moderate and peaceful communist system around, Yugoslavia. The people using words like "revolution" were the same ones who wrote panegyrics to the cultural revolution and actually defended Pol Pot in public. I knew of course that there was a vast difference between Lennon-style peaceniks and the Soviet Union or Pol Pot, but I simply fundamentally distrusted left wing instincts. "Left wing" in a european context being, as you know, actual genuine socialists.

Well there's the difference. Here in the US, the "revolution" was a pretty mild concept. We are a young democratic culture, after all. What we wanted was a truly representative democracy based on Enlightenment principles, and a more equitable economic system (should such a thing exist). Overthrow of the government was fashionable with the extremists, but the mainstream movement was for perfecting the system we have. I've never known an actual communist (despite all my years spent in art collectives). Our concept of communism is a cute little uniform and crushing military rule. Of course many on the left favor workers' owning the means of production, instead of the other way around, but many centrist "capitalists" here feel the same way, they just call it something else.

As things stand now, here in the States, it is the right which has been radicalized to the point where they favor overwhelming Big-Government oversight of our personal lives, including reproductive rights, matters of sexual orientation and personal religious freedoms. It is the right which is virulently, anarchically anti-government when it comes to any regulations whatsoever on financial markets or protections for the environment and workers' rights. It is the right which supports ending the Rule of Law. To be American is to have witnessed the radicalization of the right. What started out as a somewhat pragmatic party supporting a certain rational status-quo has gradually morphed into an incoherent anarchist mob encompassing religious extremism, fanatical free-market ideology and a belligerent nationalism. Whoopie.

 

[Qvist]

Yes, but all of these are not unilateral preemptive wars on the part of the United States, which is part of the neocon doctrine (a right-wing doctrine, might I add). The above are "justified" wars. Iraq invaded Kuwait, which was an act of war in itself, and universally condemned as such. Coalition action was taken. The wars in the Balkans were a response to genocide and ethnic cleansing which was also universally condemned, and every other avenue for resolution was explored. I remember the Dayton Accords. What we are discussing is the casual acceptance of violence as just another tool, not the reluctant acceptance of war as the last resort.

Yes, absolutely. Of course, the distinctions involved between the cases are real and fundamental. My point was basically that wars for the above reasons entails using war as a political tool in essence just as much as the neocon view. Not accepting any more ethnic cleansing is also a part of politics. The difference is not in regarding war as a political tool or not, but rather in the degree of willingness to use it.

Wow, that is a serious charge. Pol Pot wasn't a democratic leftist dedicated to enlightenment values, he was an insane dictator who carried out the most extreme form of demented social-engineering, and who murdered and persecuted intellectuals as well as various ethnic minorities. There's no way any rational leftist movement could ever embrace anything that insane.

You wouldn't think so, would you. But there you are.

What you are describing are extremists who exist on both sides of the spectrum.

What I'm describing is a left wing that was strong enough to dominate much of academia and cultural life in Norway during the 70s. Above all the small, sectarian but disproportionately influential maoist movement. Beyond that, the youth organisation of the socialist party (which pulled about 10% of the vote) were pro-Cambodia. Not that long ago, the head of the biggest Norwegian Union - affiliated with the highly moderate Labor Party - stated that she saw no reason to regret her support of Pol Pot during the 70s. Before that, during the 40s and 50s, much of the european cultural elite had no compunction in flocking behind Stalin's banners. Cohn-Bendit and the people who got the students out into the street in 68 weren't social democrats or utopian peaceniks. In 70s Europe, left wing radicalism that willingly and enthusiastically embraced totalitarian politics (as well as violence and terrorism, in cases like the RAF) was a force very much to be reckoned with. To these people, "Revolution" wasn't a bit of a makeover, it was class enemies against the wall and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Eagerly anticipated.

I would posit that the principles of non-violence are universal: here in the US non-violence has been embraced principally by the left, but there are those on the right who are principally non-violent as well. Those folks seldom hold any political power, unfortunately.

Well, on that point I' afraid we won't see eye to eye. As far as I can see, non-violent opposition to military power simply doesn't work, at least not against foreign military power. I don't know of a single example to the opposite.

Well there's the difference. Here in the US, the "revolution" was a pretty mild concept. We are a young democratic culture, after all.

No you aren't, you are arguably the oldest democratic culture in the world.

What we wanted was a truly representative democracy based on Enlightenment principles, and a more equitable economic system (should such a thing exist). Overthrow of the government was fashionable with the extremists, but the mainstream movement was for perfecting the system we have. I've never known an actual communist (despite all my years spent in art collectives). Our concept of communism is a cute little uniform and crushing military rule. Of course many on the left favor workers' owning the means of production, instead of the other way around, but many centrist "capitalists" here feel the same way, they just call it something else.

Well, if you'd gone to a norwegian University during the first half of the 70s, you would have been knee-deep in them. But this is absolutely fascinating. What you describe sounds like the Liberal Party youth organisation, more or less. Around here, they're slightly right of center. So, not only is the European right wing mostly fairly left wing by american standards, also the american left wing is fairly right wing by european standards. It's been a too long day for me to figure out exactly where that leaves us.

As things stand now, here in the States, it is the right which has been radicalized to the point where they favor overwhelming Big-Government oversight of our personal lives, including reproductive rights, matters of sexual orientation and personal religious freedoms. It is the right which is virulently, anarchically anti-government when it comes to any regulations whatsoever on financial markets or protections for the environment and workers' rights. It is the right which supports ending the Rule of Law. To be American is to have witnessed the radicalization of the right. What started out as a somewhat pragmatic party supporting a certain rational status-quo has gradually morphed into an incoherent anarchist mob encompassing religious extremism, fanatical free-market ideology and a belligerent nationalism. Whoopie.

Ah yes, that's where it leaves us. Each of us with our particular bunch of maniacs, just at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Well, ours seem to be a thing of the past, mostly. A bigger worry actually is, as previously mentioned, the re-emergence of proto-fascism in some countries.

Anyway, the Republicans have much to blame themselves for. Rather than distance themselves from nutcase grassroots fundamentalism, they tried to exploit the voter potential in it. The risk in that is always that you end up legitimising it. If the dominant political parties do not actively protect the core values of the system against encroachment from the radical wings, they erode.

cheers

 

[Anaesthesine]

Yes, absolutely. Of course, the distinctions involved between the cases are real and fundamental. My point was basically that wars for the above reasons entails using war as a political tool in essence just as much as the neocon view. Not accepting any more ethnic cleansing is also a part of politics. The difference is not in regarding war as a political tool or not, but rather in the degree of willingness to use it.

Yes, I suppose you could say that this is all about the degree of willingness to engage in war. I posit that a leader who sees war as a tragic failure, and is only willing to engage in it as a last resort is a better leader than one who says "what the hell, let's see what happens." The former understands the gravity and great price that will be paid, and the second is a sociopath who will get everyone killed and botch the job anyway. An antipathy to war is a sign of clear-thinking. A whole-hearted embrace of war is a criminal in the making.

What I'm describing is a left wing that was strong enough to dominate much of academia and cultural life in Norway during the 70s. Above all the small, sectarian but disproportionately influential maoist movement. Beyond that, the youth organisation of the socialist party (which pulled about 10% of the vote) were pro-Cambodia. Not that long ago, the head of the biggest Norwegian Union - affiliated with the highly moderate Labor Party - stated that she saw no reason to regret her support of Pol Pot during the 70s. Before that, during the 40s and 50s, much of the european cultural elite had no compunction in flocking behind Stalin's banners. Cohn-Bendit and the people who got the students out into the street in 68 weren't social democrats or utopian peaceniks. In 70s Europe, left wing radicalism that willingly and enthusiastically embraced totalitarian politics (as well as violence and terrorism, in cases like the RAF) was a force very much to be reckoned with. To these people, "Revolution" wasn't a bit of a makeover, it was class enemies against the wall and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Eagerly anticipated.

Interesting. I was unaware of the political situation in Norway in the middle of the last century.

I'm going to have to take your word for it that the left there was a violent group of terrorists who were bent of a fascist proletarian regime. That is very, very far from any leftist movement I've ever been involved with, but I'm an American, so I live a sheltered existence.

Well, on that point I' afraid we won't see eye to eye. As far as I can see, non-violent opposition to military power simply doesn't work, at least not against foreign military power. I don't know of a single example to the opposite.

Non-violence is a universal belief, found in both secular and religious cultures. If we're talking realpolitik, then when the s**t hits the fan, the rocks/guns/missiles come out and chaos does ensue. However, a principled resistance to violence and war is present in all societies, in one form or another.

You are correct, non-violent opposition to military power is not terribly effective.

No you aren't, you are arguably the oldest democratic culture in the world.

What I meant to say is that America is a very young country - we are a young, democratic culture. We are the oldest nation to have been conceived of as a democracy, but our culture only goes back to the 17th century, and our American identity only goes back the the 18th century. We have no deep roots in anything other being a nation of immigrants.

Those of you who spring from more ancient cultures must watch what happens when one of mankind's greatest political experiments runs off the rails. America was conceived of as the crowning jewel of the Enlightenment, a chance to put theory into practice, and I think every American should be humbled by this knowledge. Everything went OK for a little while, but now we're coming apart at the seams, it seems.

Do not forget the ancient Greeks and their Athenian Democracy, by the way. They did it first, America just borrowed their architecture and some of their fancy words, and kicked it up a notch or two.

Well, if you'd gone to a norwegian University during the first half of the 70s, you would have been knee-deep in them. But this is absolutely fascinating. What you describe sounds like the Liberal Party youth organisation, more or less. Around here, they're slightly right of center. So, not only is the European right wing mostly fairly left wing by american standards, also the american left wing is fairly right wing by european standards. It's been a too long day for me to figure out exactly where that leaves us.

Ah yes, that's where it leaves us. Each of us with our particular bunch of maniacs, just at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Well, ours seem to be a thing of the past, mostly. A bigger worry actually is, as previously mentioned, the re-emergence of proto-fascism in some countries.

Anyway, the Republicans have much to blame themselves for. Rather than distance themselves from nutcase grassroots fundamentalism, they tried to exploit the voter potential in it. The risk in that is always that you end up legitimising it. If the dominant political parties do not actively protect the core values of the system against encroachment from the radical wings, they erode.

Amen Brother.

 

[joe frady]

who's Julia?

 

[Stuheff]

Will the Smiths Ever get back together?

 

[BosMoz]

Will the Smiths Ever get back together?

Only if Mike agrees to it

Jukebox Jury

 

[hand in glove]

Only if Mike agrees to it

Jukebox Jury

HAHA!!!! JJ, you really shouldn't kid yourself like this...it isn't healthy!!

Nice to see you, btw

 

[Troy]

Re: If you do not vote . . .

Did Morrissey say once he never bothers to vote in the UK elections?

If a person does not vote, then their liberal comments about any political person/policy/process are null and void.

To ignore politics or merely be an 'armchair' critic without ever joining a party or knowing what is involved even on the shallowest of surfaces . . . then am afraid you will see the consequences and they are not very attractive . . . hence the situations around the world now.

And for a female not to vote that is even worse, for a woman had to throw herself infront of the King's racehorse - at full gallop - for the right to vote.

So not to vote and be blase about such is nothing to be proud of.

 

[DarkSock]

I peed in a horse once.

 

[Uncleskinny]

I peed in a horse once.

You registered to post this. I don't think you'll last too long around here.

 

[the_kaz]

Re: If you do not vote . . .

Did Morrissey say once he never bothers to vote in the UK elections?

That is true. He's likely made a point of it more than once, but I specifically remember him saying that he doesn't vote on his Jonathan Ross interview in 2004. However, I personally don't think there's anything wrong with his statement. You can absolutely be political and reject the awful political system that we have. I vote, but sometimes I wonder why I bother. I don't think this unfair system that we have now, and two-party system where both parties are hardly any different to each other, is how the women who fought for the vote in the past would have envisioned things.

 

[dunya]

Re: If you do not vote . . .

That is true. He's likely made a point of it more than once, but I specifically remember him saying that he doesn't vote on his Jonathan Ross interview in 2004. However, I personally don't think there's anything wrong with his statement. You can absolutely be political and reject the awful political system that we have. I vote, but sometimes I wonder why I bother. I don't think this unfair system that we have now, and two-party system where both parties are hardly any different to each other, is how the women who fought for the vote in the past would have envisioned things.

Indeed. We very much need a fairer voting system, and I hope the Lib Dems don't blow this chance to press for it.
I spoke to many people who felt the right to vote to have been hard fought and should not be wasted.