Why do you hate America?

[prole]

I've got some issues with a couple of themes that are running through "liberal" and "conservative" posts on this thread. First, I think there are fundamental problems with the idea of "national interest". Namely, that those who wield state power actually act in the interest of ordinary Americans. This notion is one that is deeply ingrained in the American consciousness and one that has been carefully cultivated over many years. The idea of the US as a nation that one can speak of as "our" country that is being defended on behalf of "our interests" for "our way of life" completely ignores American society's deep economic and racial divisions and its vast inequalities in wealth and power. Does anybody really think that these politicians give a fuck about anything but maintaining their own bloc's hold on power? Save the "United We Stand"-type slogans for bumber stickers and lawn signs.

Secondly, the whole notion that American aggression is justified because it provides the basis for domestic political rights is just utter nonsense. Supporters of America's imperialist wars have been trotting this one out for far too long. Political rights and freedoms gained in this country have historically not been bestowed from on high by elites, but have been captured through the stuggle of women, minorites, and working class people. Not through "defense" or military conquest, not because it's part of "our heritage", but because progressive asskickers have beat it out of those in positions of power. There is a disturbing amount of sniveling going on to the tune of: "Well we can't really complain about US wars of aggression because the the state in it's benevolent benificence has deemed us worthy to give us rights." Give me a break, get a spine. Those rights are a human birthright to be siezed and that blood has been spilt for a hundred million times, not a gift!

Oh, and the Oliver North quote above has got to take the George Orwell Doublespeak Award. Thank god there are enough people with enough of a grip on reality left in this country that we may never see his vision of a "viable democracy" realized. Then again...

[Fairweather]

I've got some issues with a couple of themes that are running through "liberal" and "conservative" posts on this thread. First, I think there are fundamental problems with the idea of "national interest". Namely, that those who wield state power actually act in the interest of ordinary Americans. This notion is one that is deeply ingrained in the American consciousness and one that has been carefully cultivated over many years. The idea of the US as a nation that one can speak of as "our" country that is being defended on behalf of "our interests" for "our way of life" completely ignores American society's deep economic and racial divisions and its vast inequalities in wealth and power. Does anybody really think that these politicians give a fuck about anything but maintaining their own bloc's hold on power? Save the "United We Stand"-type slogans for bumber stickers and lawn signs.

Secondly, the whole notion that American aggression is justified because it provides the basis for domestic political rights is just utter nonsense. Supporters of America's imperialist wars have been trotting this one out for far too long. Political rights and freedoms gained in this country have historically not been bestowed from on high by elites, but have been captured through the stuggle of women, minorites, and working class people. Not through "defense" or military conquest, not because it's part of "our heritage", but because progressive asskickers have beat it out of those in positions of power. There is a disturbing amount of sniveling going on to the tune of: "Well we can't really complain about US wars of aggression because the the state in it's benevolent benificence has deemed us worthy to give us rights." Give me a break, get a spine. Those rights are a human birthright to be siezed and that blood has been spilt for a hundred million times, not a gift!

Oh, and the Oliver North quote above has got to take the George Orwell Doublespeak Award. Thank god there are enough people with enough of a grip on reality left in this country that we may never see his vision of a "viable democracy" realized. Then again...

 

You profess: "I've got some issues with a couple of themes that are running through "liberal" and "conservative" posts on this thread." OK...we can all see in your subsequent rant that you don't adhere to the conservative ideal, so when do you plan to reveal your displeasure with the 'liberal' side of the coin? Is it possible that you were simply trying to frame yourself as a neutral, thoughtful, moderate in that first sentence when it is so blatantly obvious you are not?

 

I can (somewhat)respect a liberal or left-wing poster who freely admits his/her bias before - or after stating their opinion. But I have no tolerance for someone who wraps themself in the cloak of moderation only to then breathe fire down the opposite side of the fence. Weak.

 

Oh yea; welcome to the site.

[prole]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I didn't mean to cloak myself in anything, sorry for the confusion. Thoughful? I hope so, Moderate, neutral? No. My rant was directed at both sides of the proverbial fence in part because I think both conservatives and liberals fundamentally share the similar ideas on "national interest" and a warped and ahistorical notion of political rights. The distinction between "liberals" and "conservatives" that dominates American political discourse obscures more than it explains. Specifically, how much they share in common. The Liberal Political Tradition vs. the American use of the term "liberal" has already been covered on this site. It's an important distinction that's helpful in breaking down some of the false and somewhat confusing dualities in the American political scene (i.e. A socially conservative economic liberal-WTF!?). So, I reject the fence, the coin, but I come down harder on "conservatives" because I share more in common with "liberals".

Anyway, I didn't think it was necessary to flash my political orientation at the door, but since I'm new... I'm a leftist (not of the soccer-mom Socialist variety i think). While recognizing their limitations, I think that Marxian concepts (like CLASS, for instance) provide some solid tools for understanding contemporary society: the dynamics of capitalism, global political economy, ideology, culture. As far as more practical matters of political organization, I lean toward anarchism. Ahh, I freely admit my bias. I feel better, that cloak was like all hot inside.

[Dechristo]

...I think that Marxian concepts ...provide some solid tools for understanding...

It seems real world trials of experimentation with Marxist concepts have led to draconian restrictions in personal liberties. The same human frailties you decry in our political system (the obsession of those with power to retain it) manifests in every political system. Does your construal of implemented Marxist concepts square with your desire for anarchistic politics?

 

Ahh, I freely admit my bias. I feel better, that cloak was like all hot inside.

Confession is one of many doorways to personal liberty.

[Fairweather]

... but since I'm new... I'm a leftist (not of the soccer-mom Socialist variety i think). While recognizing their limitations, I think that Marxian concepts (like CLASS, for instance) provide some solid tools for understanding contemporary society: the dynamics of capitalism, global political economy, ideology, culture. As far as more practical matters of political organization, I lean toward anarchism. ...

 

I believe I understand that you are espousing Marxism only as a tool for understanding societal class structure and not as an ideal in and of itself. Am I correct?

 

If not, I'm sure you understand the violent hurdles that the attempted implementation of a communist system here in the USA would face from my side of the political spectrum.....and probably from the liberal side as well. For those who harbor such utopian dreams in our free country, I have a suggestion: Make no attempt to impose them on me.

 

"Better dead than red" isn't just a redneck rant.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

... but since I'm new... I'm a leftist (not of the soccer-mom Socialist variety i think). While recognizing their limitations, I think that Marxian concepts (like CLASS, for instance) provide some solid tools for understanding contemporary society: the dynamics of capitalism, global political economy, ideology, culture. As far as more practical matters of political organization, I lean toward anarchism. ...

 

I believe I understand that you are espousing Marxism only as a tool for understanding societal class structure and not as an ideal in and of itself. Am I correct?

 

If not, I'm sure you understand the violent hurdles that the attempted implementation of a communist system here in the USA would face from my side of the political spectrum.....and probably from the liberal side as well. For those who harbor such utopian dreams in our free country, I have a suggestion: Make no attempt to impose them on me.

 

"Better dead than red" isn't just a redneck rant.

 

Wait, isn't it "better dead than red...neck?"

[prole]

A couple of things in response. Marx's work is enormous and varied. His critique of contemporary political economy offers concepts for understanding capitalism and society that went far beyond the existing analyses of Smith, Ricardo, et al. Marxian and non-Marxian scholars alike recognize the usefulness in these concepts. An analysis which puts capitalism at the fore in its methods seems to me to be more relevant than ever when capitalism has been extended across the planet.

 

It is telling that when most people think of Marx, and "real world trials of experimentation with Marxist concepts", totalitarian police state tactics, loss of personal freedom, huge bureaucratic apparatuses, environmental degradation on par with capitalist countries, deprivation, bad architecture, etc. generally spring to mouth. I will not defend or apologize for "actually existing Socialism". I will say that these societies do not represent "implemented Marxist concepts", the historical reality is far more complex. Marx wrote virtually nothing about what post-capitalist society might look like. (Utopianism is exactly what Marx critiqued the Anarchists for. To do so would be pure folly, as Fairweather points out stuggles would be very intense, possibly violent, and outcomes would be historically dependent on how those struggles played out. Revolutionary tactics and organization fell to the likes of Lenin and Trotsky and others in countries with virtually none of the characteristics that Marx thought would be necessary for a transition from capitalism to socialism. These countries' (most often of the "third world" variety) attempt to develop productive capacites rapidly in the face of military aggression and capitalist competition as well as sustain social revolutions domestically resulted in what we superficially understand as Socialism.

 

Anyway, the history of the Left is not confined to the horrors of the gulag, Pol Pot, etc. Left and left influenced struggle have been instrumental in, among other things, the 8-hour workday, throwing off the yolk of third-world colonialism, the right to bargain collectively with employers, civil rights, anti-censorship, relatively high standards of living and universal benefits among workers in European countries where the left has been historically strong, anti-fascism, and on and on. What has the Right done for you lately?

 

So no, I don't only espouse Marxism for its analytical capabilities, but that it part of a solid and longstanding tradition committed to social justice, the breaking down of social hierarchies, and human liberation from oppression. Things that continue unabated on an even greater scale, weak and nonsensical appeals to "human nature" notwithstanding.

[Fairweather]

 

It is telling that when most people think of Marx, and "real world trials of experimentation with Marxist concepts", totalitarian police state tactics, loss of personal freedom, huge bureaucratic apparatuses, environmental degradation on par with capitalist countries, deprivation, bad architecture, etc. generally spring to mouth.

 

You forgot "mass starvation", "forced labor", and "wholesale slaughter".

 

I will not defend or apologize for "actually existing Socialism". I will say that these societies do not represent "implemented Marxist concepts", the historical reality is far more complex. Revolutionary tactics and organization fell to the likes of Lenin and Trotsky and others in countries with virtually none of the characteristics that Marx thought would be necessary for a transition from capitalism to socialism. These countries' (most often of the "third world" variety) attempt to develop productive capacites rapidly in the face of military aggression and capitalist competition as well as sustain social revolutions domestically resulted in what we superficially understand as Socialism.

 

Ahhh yes. The old "we haven't done it right yet" lie. So how many more millions of innocents must die? How thorougly should the spirit of individuality be crushed before 'true' communists finally get it right? How many more chances do they need? And are you really saying that outside capitalist military/economic aggression is the reason attempts have, so far, failed?

 

Anyway, the history of the Left is not confined to the horrors of the gulag, Pol Pot, etc. Left and left influenced struggle have been instrumental in, among other things, the 8-hour workday, throwing off the yolk of third-world colonialism, the right to bargain collectively with employers, civil rights, anti-censorship, relatively high standards of living and universal benefits among workers in European countries .....

 

Former USSR? China? Cuba? N Korea? How are/were workers faring in these places? Of course, you're talking about the western left, and I would have to say that some of the pressures they have put on rampant, unchecked capitalism have been just.

 

What has the Right done for you lately?

 

You mean other than unprecedented economic prosperity, employment, and a place where scientific innovation can be properly rewarded? ...And how do you explain China's somewhat successful flirtation with capitalism?

 

 

 

So no, I don't only espouse Marxism for its analytical capabilities, but that it part of a solid and longstanding tradition committed to social justice, the breaking down of social hierarchies, and human liberation from oppression.

 

Too bad you can't show examples where this is so on a national scale. Your attempts to separate Marxism from its experiments-to-date are dangerous. I asked in the previous post if you were an adherent, or were merely using marxism for your example. I think I have my answer. I see you reside in Bellingham. Forgive me, but I sincerely hope you're not in a position to influence young minds at WWU.

[prole]

First of all, someone's gonna have to show me how the "quote" button works! It looks like fun!

 

Quote: You forgot "mass starvation", "forced labor", and "wholesale slaughter".

Like I said before, I'm not going to apologize for Communist regimes' atrocities. My argument was that they do not represent the attempt to put Marx's ideas into practice since he wrote little or nothing about revolutionary activity in pre-industrialized countries. That such "experiments" would be doomed to failure is readily apparent in his work. Nor do they represent "failures to go far enough" as is suggested by the "big bad lie" remark.

 

Quote: "Are you really saying that outside capitalist military/economic aggression is the reason attempts have, so far, failed?"

As I said before, it is a part of the reason why these states took on the characteristics that they did. It would be silly to think that these states developed in a vacuum, a test tube where a socialist "experiment" could take place. They developed in a global context, one in which they had to compete in a material sense, to develop productive capacities, to compete with capitalism to survive. Outside aggression, as Americans know from recent experience, can be used to justify domestic oppression of dissidents and curtail civil liberties. Elites in control of state power tend to want to keep it.

Back to the above quote, I would challenge you to show how "mass starvation", "forced labor", and "wholesale slaughter" is unique to the Socialist experience. Countless examples could be given that suggest these have all flourished under and have been integral to 500 years of capitalist development. Ask the Indian under British rule about mass starvation. Ask the African slave about forced labor or the indigenous Burmese building pipelines for Unocal or the Chinese who built the American railroads. Ask the Native American about wholesale slaughter or the disappeared Chileans under Pinochet. All inconvenient "revisionist" history for the true believer or, at the very least, justifiable given the paradise we all live in now. No pain, no gain right?

 

Which brings us to the next point:

Q: What has the Right delivered? A:"You mean other than unprecedented economic prosperity, employment, and a place where scientific innovation can be properly rewarded? ...And how do you explain China's somewhat successful flirtation with capitalism?"

Wait, you forgot about the mass extinction of flora and fauna on a scale unseen since the dinosaurs were wiped out, unrelenting warfare and the rise of religious and ethnic fundamentalisms, rising inequalities within and between countries, increasing forms of surveillance and coercive state power and a ballooning prison population , a lifeless and bankrupt cultural landscape dominated by celebrity worship, scandal, and virtuality, decaying political systems characterized by same, proliferation of all manner of lethal weaponry. But WOW palm pilots, Hummers, penis enlargement, designer babies, and SOCOM Navy Seals on my XBox are COOL and the designers of these innovations are properly rewarded! Maybe the technoprophets will be able to escape this planet with their CEOs to begin again after this one is toast. Or should I say, no longer economically viable. Ahhh, stable equillibrium at last.

 

Quote: "How are the former Soviet Union's workers faring?"

Glad you asked! Pretty shitty actually; the IMF's shock therapy (rapid forced transition to a free-market capitalist economy) devastated the economy and sent most social indicators like life expectancy and infant mortality plunging, while rapid privatizations created a new gangster/entreprenurial class overnight while throwing tens of thousands out of work. Said crises have resulted in political disintegration, rise of ethnic nationalisms and religious fundamentalisms waging asymmetrical warfare in the form of terrorist bombings on the streets of Moscow.

Cuba? Glad you asked! Been to Haiti, Dominican, Honduras, Nicaragua lately? Average Cubans enjoy a higher standard of living than their counterparts in comparable states despite almost 50 years of overt and covert aggression and economic warfare. Oops, was that an apology? I guess it was, but considereing that the Cuban people generally support the revolution, I'm okay with that. (Can't wait for the spray on that one) But how about some of the "rampant, unchecked capitalism" encountered under Bautista? Pinochet? Rios Montt? Fujimori? Somoza? Or any other dictatorship supportive of capitalist (and especially American) development? Insert Cold War Justification here.

 

China's "somewhat successful flirtation with capitalism"? Glad you asked! Mass exodus from the countryside to polluted and overpopulated cities to work in dirty and dangerous conditions resulting in migrant-worker population that numbers in the hundreds of millions! Working for paltry wages to create more crap for Western markets that will eventually be shipped to offshore landfills! A transition managed through state coercion and repression of demonstrations for health and safety regulations, wage increases, and the like. But wait, doesn't China sport an emerging middle class? Just what we need: 500,000,000 new Western style consumers! If China manages to successfully complete its transition to a capitalist economy, you might as well be climbing rocks inside of a smokestack.

Really Fairweather, who is the utopian here? No pain, no gain, technological dynamism unleashed by the forces of capitalism will save us, an unbroken progress through the centuries toward free-market equillibrium, similar justifications for similar atrocities? All in all, I would have to say that your ideas have and continue to pose a far greater threat to human freedom and life on this planet than mine. Since resistance to your project seems to be at an all-time low, we're getting a front row seat to the action. But somehow I don't think you're going to get another 500 years.

[Jim]

Prole: 1

 

Fairweather: 0

[selkirk]

Prole: 1

 

Fairweather: 0

 

[Billygoat]

Outgunned.

 

 

I'm a capatalist (until we can get rid of money) but I am definitly on Prole's side of the fence.

[Fairweather]

 

 

I'm a capatalist (until we can get rid of money) but I am definitly on Prole's side of the fence.

 

The most convoluted and bizarre comment of the week. Better go back and read what comrade Prole is writing. You are both attempting to have your cake...and eat it too.

 

Prole: What are your thoughts on Hugo Chavez?

[Divot]

I can talk about this for hours.

[AlpineK]

FWIW Not that I think it would work, but to the best of my understanding Marx's idea was that communism would happen in the most advanced countries of the world. Eventually the US, Japan, and western europe would become communist.

 

In reallity revolutionaries have used the ideas of communism in more backward countries. I believe Lenin's idea was that Russia could leapfrog all that development and go straight to communist government.

 

In any case I don't think the philosophy would work because in reality human nature acts more towards self interest as opposed to group interest.

 

Of course true capitalism isn't practiced anywhere on the planet.

[JayB]

I should really get back to reading "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," which has thus far been one of the most enjoyable reads of my life, for the quality of the prose if nothing else. Witness the following quote describing one of the many emperors to hold the throne "Twenty-two acknowledged concubines, and a library of sixty-two thousand volumes, attested the variety of his inclinations; and from the productions which he left behind him, it appears that the former as well as the latter were designed for use rather than ostentation."

 

With regards to the subject at hand, one can vapor on about Marx for an eternity, and dream about the endless permutations that a utopia based upon his visions might take on - but the basic fact is that in the unfortunate event that anyone attempts to resurrect them once again this experiment against reality will also inevitably fail, for a number of reasons. Foremost amongst these is that allocating the productive resources in such a way as to allign supply and demand is too complex a task to be accomplished by a central committee, let alone planned in advance. A missallocation of productive resources always has, and always will, bring about the ruin of any economy so governed. There are a number of other internal and external factors that will forestall or accelerate the collapse brought about by this law, but the end will always remain the same.

[prole]

AlpineK, I think you're pretty close on Marx's ideas on where he thought socialist revolutions would occur. Most of his writing focused on England and Germany; capitalist development in the US was very uneven and focused in the Northeast while the South and frontier were essentially agrarian. Later revolutionaries (Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Che, et al) theorized how social revolutions might take place in precapitalist social formations lacking fully developed proletariat and capitalist classes. That was where "leapfrogging" or Trotsky's "permanent revolution" came in.

 

I'm not so sure about your idea that human nature, or animal nature for that matter, is necessarily being geared toward self-interest. Certainly there is an instinct toward self-preservation hardwired into the reaches of the animal brain, but human behavior is by and large socially determined. Anthropology has amply shown that through 10,000 years of more of human history, human beings have and are capable of living in all kinds of ways, very few of which privilege base self-interest above all else. This is especially true in social groups in which greedy or self serving behavior would endanger the survival of the entire group. Such societies developed strong cultural deterrents to such behaviors. Capitalist society glorifies self-serving behavior, even greed. This has provided much of the ideological ammunition for its claims of promoting human freedom and individuality and is certainly progressive in that aspect, with distinct and obvious limitations. The key is that these behaviors represent only a fraction of the possibilities in a vast range of human impulses, behaviors and emotions. Capitalist society emphasizes, amplifies, and rewards particular traits. It is understandable that, living in this society, we would think that base self-interest, greed, and the aquisition of wealth are the prime characteristics of "human nature". Capitalist ideology has proven very adept at obscuring its historical origins, that it is in fact only one particular way of ordering human society rather than the natural progress of humanity and the most suited to our nature. What we consider "natural" is heavily determined by the kind of society we live in, not the other way round.

 

Long Live King Chavez!

[Dechristo]

It would seem whenever a person, over a protracted period of time, harbors the belief the world would be better if it were conformed to their image, eventually, that notion would become as satisfying to them as rubbing their elbow.