Here's an political pairing you won't see very often. First, I'm going to quote Victor Davis Hanson. Then, I'm going to quote Herbert Marcuse. And they're going to agree.
Victor Davis Hanson in Cracked Icons:
"If in the 1950s rightists were criticized as cynical Cold Warriors who never met a right-wing thug they wouldn't support, as long as he mouthed a few anti-Soviet platitudes, then in the last two decades almost any thug from Latin America to the Middle East who professed concern for “the people” - from Castro and the Noriega Brothers to Yasser Arafat and the Iranian mullahs - was likely to earn a pass from the American and European cultural elite and media. To regain credibility, the Left must start to apply the same standard of moral outrage to a number of its favorite causes that it does to the United States government, the corporations, and the Christian Right. Here are a few places to start."
The rest is worth reading, as usual. Meanwhile, lefty blogger Norman Geras made a related point by quoting Herbert Marcuse in Ethics and Revolution:
"The ethics of revolution... do not cancel the validity of those general norms which formulate requirements for the progress of mankind toward humanity. No matter how rationally one may justify revolutionary means in terms of the demonstrable chance of obtaining freedom and happiness for future generations... there are forms of violence and suppression which no revolutionary situation can justify because they negate the very end for which the revolution is a means. Such are arbitrary violence, cruelty and indiscriminate terror."
Norm's comments about the modern democratic left in the West and the moral truth of these observations are right on the money. They speak to the very malaise addressed both by Hanson and by leftists like Michael Walzer, whose seminal article "Can There Be A Decent Left?" put both his despair and his hopes into words.
LOLOL. You think Norm Geras is a lefty blogger?!!
Michael Walzer's "Can There Be A Decent Left?" almost says directly that there is not much decency to be seen on the left.
But thats a weak admission for a body of ideas that has butchered 100+ Million people with the excuse, "You have to break a few eggs" made famous by, if im not mistaken, Walter Duuranty, of the New York Times who helped Stalin cover up crimes against humanity.
The left excused, gave aid and confort to, Glorified, the Soviet Union, the most evil regime of all time. a state that Mass Murdered 61 Million, Sixty One Million people, by death camp, forced starvation and summary execution.
Communism, with its mountain of mass murder it created among almost the whole range of geography peoples and cultures that exist on earth murdered over 3 times the 43 million Combat killed of all wars.
Measured in the death inoocents, its the most evil idology that has ever existed.
That anybody and anything is better than Communism is a provable fact.
And doing anything or supporting any type of regime to hold Communism at bay is proven morally correct.
Even Pinnocete is preferrable to any communist.
The world is imperfect, and liberty of the kind we enjoy in America is still all too rare.
The blood stained left that created the largest mountain of murdered innocents, beggared wholed continents, and suffered billions under the oppression of the iron boot, presumes to offer us advice?
I still remember the BBC reported getting teary eyed for the blood stained inventor of modern terrorism, Arafat.
The left cant even identify the differnce between good and evil unless the USA takes a position, whereopon the left takes up the opposite.
Where is decency or morality in that ?
So we find a mass grave of children, herded to the bottom of a fresh ditch and shot, covered where they fell, some still clutching their toys.
And just like they shrug past the 100+ Million people they murdered.
They shrug past a mass grave of kids.
Since the left can find no political gain, the dead kids dont exist, the leftist mainstream media ignores it.
Whats important to them is the scanned signature Rummy appends to his inkjet printer output.
This contrast of gravity vs trivality exposes that for the left, morality, the idea of right and wrong, is just a political calulation. there is no actual soul in there, no sense of right and wrong.
It tells you they can send you to the bottom of a mass grave as easy as all the others they sent there. Your life or death, like the mass grave of kids, is a political calculation.
Morally obtuse they are, decency ? morality ?
they no longer know the difference.
It is a political calulation. Its not part of the makeup of them. Only makeup on them.
"... the validity of those general norms which formulate requirements for the progress of mankind toward humanity."
But for me those requirements include democracy, free speech, and both political and economic freedom. Too bad Marcuse didn't believe in any of those things. Marcuse is the ultimate philosopher for malcontents: Western society is oppressive, not because it supresses people but precisely because it's too permissive. Capitalism is oppressive, not because it deprives people but precisely because it makes them too comfortable (to Marcuse, cheap consumer goods are a form of State Terrorism). Liberalism is oppressive, because it allows people the freedom to say things that Marcuse disagreed with.
If you ever want to know how much "dialectical reasoning" it takes to get your head completely up your ass, read Marcuse. He makes it look easy.
As Walzer said: "If we value democracy, we have to be prepared to defend it, at home, of course, but not only there." That's if. If, if, if, if, if. You don't get the assumption for free anymore, not these days.
Norm Geras was and remains a declared leftist. He sees no contradiciton between his long-standing humanist political principles and his current stances. The fact that his authenticity is questioned because he has remained true to those principles says far more about the questioners - and about the current state of the left in general - than it does about him.
As for Marcuse, obviously he isn't exactly a hero of mine. Nevertheless, his statement above speaks for itself. There are higher principles than politics for him, and despite his other failings that matters a great deal.
Large swathes of the left have historically ignored his important injuction, at the cost of about 100 million dead in NON-WAR situations. Net contribution to the betterment of humanity in return for this sacrifice of humanity and morality: zero to negative.
You may believe, as I do, that the left's ideas are fundamentally flawed in important ways. Nevertheless, as my colleague Armed Liberal points out, the left has made contributions to the betterment of humanity. It has ONLY done so when it stood on a credible morality that superceded politics.
With the God of socialism dead and its idols of revolutionary states cracked and broken, morality and justice are all the Left has left. If it loses that, it loses everything.
With the God of socialism dead and its idols of revolutionary states cracked and broken, morality and justice are all the Left has left. If it loses that, it loses everything.
This question is not meant facetiously; What is the Left?
Rochard, that's a good question. I'm thinking of the democratic left in Western countries (that is to say, democratic socialists). These days, that includes significant sections of American liberalism as well.
I should clarify in my post.
Raymond says "And doing anything or supporting any type of regime to hold Communism at bay is proven morally correct."
That is a pretty amazing moral code. How can anyone advance ideas like this and call the left morally bankrupt? Sounds like the rationalizations used by death squads the world over.
Equating the "socialists" of Sweden and the Netherlands with Stalin is an exercize in replacing the most basic thought process with blind ideology.
I think in the interests of intellectual honesty, the author's of this blog should stop pretending they operate from a "left" perspective in any sense. If you have strongly supported the election of the most right wing president in recent US history, common sense says you are on the right wing.
Anyone who fails to oppose the Bush administration's attempts to slash the social safety net and unravel the "New Deal" with the "privatization" of Social Security (soon to be Social Insecurity as the disability and survivor benefits disappear into private accounts) cannot be honestly considered to be "left".
So if you believe that socialism is dead, perhaps you should just be Republicans and give up the project of telling the Democrats how to restructure.
Interestingly, someone forgot to tell Latin America that socialism was dead. Perhaps the blogosphere should communicate to Chavez, Lula, and Socialist parties throughout Europe and Latin America that they no longer exist because WindsOfCHange has declared their death.
Chile is about to elect a new Socialist government. Will the CIA have to bankroll a new Pinochet to overthrow it?
But, Joe, you have acknowledged that the God of socialism is dead. I presume you meant not just the USSR but the intellectual and moral movement that supported it, its goals and what it purported to represent. These are folks with a God that no longer works. They and their strength will wither as they die off in numbers far greater than those foolish enough to join a dying religion. Look at the Shakers. Need there be a successor?
Raymond says "And doing anything or supporting any type of regime to hold Communism at bay is proven morally correct." That is a pretty amazing moral code.
Raymond's argument would appear to be that even situations like Chile result in fewer deaths than communist governments. Admittedly, if you're playing cost:benefit with numbers of lives as the only yardstick, the numbers are in his favour and it's hard to dispute him.
There's a supplementary argument that while one works with what's available (sometimes all possibilities are unpalatable, but one must still choose) the Cold War was also a war of ideas, and so democracy, liberty, etc. have a place on the scales as well. Indeed, when Reagan finally brought Communism's evil empire down, a strategy of aggressively promoting freedom whenever possible played an important role. Obviously, this creates a different perspective on morality and means.
That argument (and experience) changed the U.S. right wing, and led in many ways to a large-scale reconsideration and the "freedom-forward" ideology we see today. 9/11 accelerated this evolution, but it was already well underway.
"I think in the interests of intellectual honesty, the author's of this blog should stop pretending they operate from a "left" perspective in any sense.
Some of us don't. If you read my post, it's pretty clear that I don't. Dan Darling interned with AEI, which contains a number of ex-leftists but certainy none in current standing. This isn't exactly a state secret here.
Liberal team members like Armed Liberal, Randy Paul, et. al., and outside bloggers like Norm Geras, can speak for themseleves - and have.
We find that the mix we have here leads to good debate, and we're happy to have anyone comment on any issue. If all you listen to are the people on your own side, your world view will be impoverished.
"Anyone who fails to oppose the Bush administration's attempts to slash the social safety net and unravel the "New Deal" with the "privatization" of Social Security (soon to be Social Insecurity as the disability and survivor benefits disappear into private accounts) cannot be honestly considered to be "left".
You know, I must have missed the Internationale meeting when they appointed you to be the political officer for the American left. Congratulations on your new title, and good luck recruiting the necessary stukachi.
I also congratulate Tom's sense of imagination, given that issues like Social Security and social programs are nowhere cited in the post above, or even the articles they link to (though I do encourage leftist marginalization in the debate via purely reactionary stances like Tom's). In fact, I don't think Winds has even written about Social Security in the USA.
Personally, I don't think anyone who advocates sex with small puppies has the right to claim leftist credentials, which pretty much disqualifies anything Tom may have to say. (Hey, this technique is fun!)
"Interestingly, someone forgot to tell Latin America that socialism was dead."
Lula knows. I don't see him moving to nationalize the forces of production, do you?
I'd say that someone forgot to tell Castro and Kim Jong-Il, but that isn't true. It's just that those people who did tell them were imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed. North Korea and Cuba - what a great pair of advertisements.
RE: socialism's death as an ideology and the need for a successor. Richard makes a good point, and he's partly right re: what I meant
Joe, you have acknowledged that the God of socialism is dead. I presume you meant not just the USSR but the intellectual and moral movement that supported it,
Yes.
its goals and what it purported to represent.
No. That's the part that isn't dead, and must rest on a foundation of morality that is beyond politics.
These are folks with a God that no longer works.
True, and that has been shown in the clearest possible terms.
They and their strength will wither as they die off in numbers far greater than those foolish enough to join a dying religion. Look at the Shakers. Need there be a successor?
As long as its goals and what it purported to represent still have relevance, there will be a weakened remnant. The question, as Walzer, Hanson and other have noted, is what will that remnant coalesce around?
Lacking its former Gods, the current choice for many seems to be a decadent and spiteful nihilism, coupled with hatred of modernity & the capitalist system (represented by the USA and the Jews as totems, hence Bourgeoisphobes and increasing truck with Islamists by the Left ).
Others, including Britain's Tony Blair, Brazil's Lula, et. al., are working to create a new basis for democratic socialism that no longer worships the old Gods, and no longer needs to. In the end, however, their ideology needs to stand on something - and given their whole orientation around "justice," that something had better have a moral core or it has nothing.
Joe,
The biggest problem I see with the current left is its fascist rejection of liberty. That is why so many on the left have signed on with the Islamofascists: they will fight the struggle against individual liberty first, and then duke it out over what kind of laws the State in its infinite wisdom shall pass.
I would have prefered that the order be reversed, with th Western Fascism fighting Islamic Fascism first. I was concerned that this does not seem possible, but then I thought of Western Europe.....
I just read the Walzer piece Joe refers to and was struck by this lovely turn of phrase:
" pervasive leftist view of the United States as global bully-rich, privileged, selfish, hedonistic, and corrupt beyond remedy."
Aside from the first descriptor, this is a perfect description of the modern American left. Self-loathing at its most pure....
Here is the irony that cracks me up.
This whole thread is about how the Left needs a core morality to succeed ( and I agree), and yet the arguement is made that the Right needs no morality and that ANY anti-communist action is acceptable.
In a nutshell "And doing anything or supporting any type of regime to hold Communism at bay is proven morally correct" is exactly the sort of infinitely adjustable situational ethics for which the Left is justly criticized.
Joe, you have defended this statement, do you really believe it?
Is infanticide, genocide, gas chambers and death camps all "morally correct" if it "holds Communism at bay"?
Clearly Pinochet believed the answer was yes.Do You?
By the way, I am amazed that you could argue that allowing the elected government of Allende to fail and lose power thru elections would somehow have cost more lives than the thousands that Pinochet killed. Pretty good moral relativism there and those absolutes are starting to seem pretty squishy.
Note that I said "failed to oppose" and indeed your post re-iterates that Winds has not opposed or even mentioned GWB's plans for Social Insecurity, so my "technique" involves the truth, while your "technique" about small dogs and sex involves a falsehood.
I hope you can see the difference.
This is funny.
"Joe,
The biggest problem I see with the current left is its fascist rejection of liberty."
I suppose that is why the left is running those secret prison camps including torture and death for prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Luckily we have a new government of the right which will fully respect human rights and the constitution. The right would never propose an Attorney General who was an apologist for torture, because that would be a "fascist rejection of liberty".
An of course, under of a government of the right, the US could never have the highest rate of incarceration among industrialized nations because that would be "fascist rejection of liberty".
Probably, the American Civil Liberties Union will soon endorse GWB because he is such a defender of liberty.
Tom,
Fascists are statists. Running prison camps is the province of neither Left, nor Right, and is certainly not found only among statists.
The Left needs to get its history and its terminology straight, or maybe its just you....
I consider it unlikely that Left and Right will agree on terminology, since it forms a major ideological battleground.
Personally, I locate Fascism, as found in Germany, Spain, and Italy, on the right rather than left of the ideological spectrum. I am not suprised that Wishard and others on the right differ.
However, the authoritarian, nationalistic, militaristic aspects of those regimes with their appeals to God and Country are still echoed by many modern-day right-wing parties around the world. In fascism, corporations clearly served the state but the state also served corporations. Redistribution was never a concern.
My somewhat sarcastic point was that right-wing governments are not by definition supportive of personal liberty.
Similarly, left-wingers are sometimes more supportive of personal liberty. Who argues against medical marijuana and for the drug war? Who proposes constitutional amendments banning local laws enabling gay marriage? Who is rounding up and interning citizens of other nations?
Tom,
This comment here illustrates the Left's current problems perfectly:
"I suppose that is why the left is running those secret prison camps including torture and death for prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."
Yes, they're running tons of them, featuring torture and death on scales that the inmates of Abu Ghraib could not even begin to imagine. All to the fawning approval or stone-cold silence of the American and European left.
The guards in Abu Ghraib abuse prisoners and humiliate them, and go to jail as shameful criminals. The jihadis of Fallujah torture people and saw their heads off on camera, and Michael Moore calls them "Minutemen" and the left refers to them approvingly as a "nationalist resistance." And their praise for Castro continues without letup, even as he runs tropical Gulags that feature inhuman torture and death as official policy on a vast scale. Those who participate in it aren't punsihed, they're promoted - it's their job. Google the name "Armando Valladares" some time.
We could go on to places like North Korea's hell, and all the other examples Victor Davis Hanson and Michael Walzer note, in which the left has openly supported torturers and worse. But you know, the real human rights problem in the world is America. Of course.
The left's moral deficit in a nutshell.
As for Raymond's points, read my comment carefully. I said that if you used numbers of civilians murdered as the key moral calculus, then even with worst-case scenarios like Pinochet on one side the numbers are in Raymond's favour. And they are. Russia and China broke the 8-figures club, Cambodia, North Korea, Ethiopia & Vietnam all broke the 7-figures club, and the 6-figures club is a long, long list.
That's an important data point, but it isn't the only criterion one should use. I also pointed out how the right's thinking evolved under Reagan, and how those changes are relevant to the current war.
Now, is the difference between the standards for the left and right unfair? Yes. And no.
These changes toward a morality-centric foreign policy (and increasingly, domestic policies as well) were and are far more optional for the right. Its underlying support (capitalism) has proven itself to be a very successful approach, and its invocation of tradition and custom is always on hand. In contrast, the modern Left offers a failed God, and bases itself on invoking change in the name of justice.
Having a moral vision allows the right to go on the offensive, and I think that's very important. But the right could survive without it, as a look around Europe will confirm.
In contrast, a moral vision is a sine qua non (without which, nothing) for the Left; without one, its very existence becomes pointless. And its consistent refusal to see and acknowledge the existence of evil beyond the United States is turning that vision into a dark parody.
Joe, if your definition of the "left" includes Al-Zarquawi then that definition is so broad as to be useless. Although death camps exist in Iraq nothing that I would recognize as the "left" is operating them. The term "nationalist resistance" is, in my opinion, more factual than approving. Every interview with Iraqi insurgents that I have read indicates nationalist and/or pan-Arabic sentiments and resistance to occupation is their clear objective. Do you think "anti-Iraqi" forces applied to teenage Sunnis from Fallujah makes more sense? Michael Moore was an idiot to speak of Minutemen, but invasion/occupation anywhere on the planet will spur nationalist resistance, no matter how many welcoming flowers the planners imagine. Insurgents in Iraq seem to be very decentralized and diverse, not some monolithic column that marches Zarquawi's orders. Almost none of them are likely to be democrats(little d) but sooner or later Iraqis will decide the future of Iraq. Recognizing this does not make one an apologist for torture but a realist.
So far, only the lowest ranks have paid for the abuses at Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo and every day more info comes out about continuing abuse. The major architect of the torture strategy has not been "shamed" but nominated for AG.
Clearly Castro and North Korea are responsible for horrendous human rights abuses. I suppose you could find an apologist for them under a rock somewhere (or on the Internet). Similarly, you could build a strawman who claims the US is responsible for all evil on the planet, but you would have trouble locating even one real live human who believes it.
Attempting to hold the United States true to the highest moral standards and the historic democratic vision is not the same as denying that evil exists elsewhere. The members of Amnesty Intl and Human Rights Watch come from the left and not the Republican party.
More than 1 million people died in Vietnam, but how many were killed by the US or surrogates? In Guatemala death squads killed 100,000 plus with US acquiesence. Even in kindergarten, excusing your misdeeds by claiming that someone else did worse fails.
Personally I believe that all political action should be guided by a moral code, but the left can appeal to self-interest just as easily as the right. When punitive tax rates are applied to the wealthy in social-democratic countries, the rationale is more likely to be self-interest for the working class than some "moral vision". Whether Sweden's 70% max rates were in the long term interest of average citizens can be argued but I doubt moral vision had much to do with their implementation.
I propose no new Internationale but am only commenting that the suggestions and prescriptions I read for the "left" on this website have a false ring to my ears. Why would anyone on the left take advice from those with overt or covert right-wing agendas?
I suppose I could offer unsolicited advice to GWB or Ariel Sharon but I would not expect to be taken seriously.
Tom Volckhausen wrote:
Really now, please clarify for us the evidence that Pinochet used any or all of the above.
It’s not really that hard to figure out. Allende’s “government” was arming militias and inviting the Soviets (via their Cuban “clients”) to bring in troops to prop up his government. All of which makes the thought that he would have waited for much less bowed to the will of the next “election” a rather laughable precept. In which case the two to three thousand or so who were killed as a result of the coup was relatively modest compared to the cost in lives lost from comparable socialist regimes (e.g. Cuba).
Probably because (a) this is mostly a foreign policy issues blog rather than one that delves much into domestic issues* and (b) there is no proposal on the table (yet) to support, oppose, or suggest changes to.
You may want to loosen the tinfoil hat.
Actually Bush by ordering the liberation of some fifty million people in Afghanistan and Iraq has done more for human liberty than any other world leader in at least the last ten to fifteen years. Besides which, since the ACLU doesn’t believe in liberty, who cares what they think?
International Herald Tribune has an interesting article about the "moral vision" inherent in GWB's use of torture. Some quotes
"The United States has never before officially practiced torture. It was not deemed necessary in order to defeat Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Its indirect costs are enormous: in their effect on the national reputation, their alienation of international opinion, and their corruption of the morale and morality of the American military and intelligence services.
Torture doesn't even work that well. An indignant FBI witness of what has gone on at the Guantánamo prison camp says that "simple investigative techniques" could produce much information the army is trying to obtain through torture.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush administration is not torturing prisoners because it is useful but because of its symbolism. It originally was intended to be a form of what later, in the attack on Iraq, came to be called "shock and awe." It was meant as intimidation. We will do these terrible things to demonstrate that nothing will stop us from conquering our enemies. We are indifferent to world opinion. We will stop at nothing...
Destroying cities and torturing prisoners are things you do when you are losing the real war, the war your enemies are fighting. They are signals of moral bankruptcy. They destroy the confidence and respect of your friends, and reinforce the credibility of the enemy."
At Torture:Shock,Awe
On Pinochet,"Maps of concentration camps, official death records,etc":http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/pinochet/HistoryFull.htm
Note that the 3,000 dead figure is the official number from the Chilean government, almost certainly excluding many extra-judicial killings (such as the murder of Orlando Letelier in DC,etc.). Clearly Pinochet operated death camps (camps where people were killed).
Acting as an apologist for death camps on either the left or the right is a loathsome moral stance.
Pinochet's goons certainly killed children, but I have seen no evidence of gas chambers and his killings did not rise to the level of genocide. Pinochet has expressed his admiration for Hitler, but I am not sure he detailed which of Hitler's methods were most desireable.
Chile had a long unbroken democratic tradition before Pinochet's coup and I have seen no evidence of Cuban or Soviet troops (maybe its' your tinfoil hat?). Here is a thesis about the events around the coup,"Controlling Chile":http://www.wsu.edu/~honors/thesis/complete_thesis/fall_2003/KimberlyBlake.pdf
Tom Volckhausen originally claimed:
According to the site, here is what happened.
Note how Tom Volckhausen has gone from originally claiming death camps to providing evidence of what basically amounts to detention centers.
Lying about death camps when your own source admits that the occupants were detained and let go is rather loathsome. So is throwing around phony charges of infanticide and genocide.
You’re a liar and you’ve just proven it to everyone on this forum. Congratulations.
Tom is, again, willfully misreading an argument that was very clear. Fortunately, he's making my argument for me in the process.
To argue that Zarqawi is not of the left is simply nonsense when the argument in question (and the moral issue) is the left's support for the Iraqi insurgency and failure to address or question its methods. Milosevic (who WAS of the left) got a similar pass, but so have many people whose acquaintance with leftism was passing or nil.
Indeed, the fact that all a brutal, torturing thug requires these days is an anti-American stance in order to receive immunity to scrutiny, criticism, and protest by the Left is precisely the point raised by Walzer, Geras, and Hanson.
Sure says a lot about priorities, doesn't it?
Geras, Walzer, and Hanson find that distressing, as moral ideals are the only thing the Left has that are worth anything. They're right to point out this contradiction, and the danger to the movement.
Whether leftists choose to listen is their choice - but the point remains valid.
"Clearly Castro and North Korea are responsible for horrendous human rights abuses.
Clearly. The clockwork consistency and staggering magnitude of these abuses under Marxist regimes in general is also clear. Murdered civilians in the hundreds of thousands were routine, even absent any state of war in those countries. Totals in the millions were not uncommon.
I suppose you could find an apologist for them under a rock somewhere (or on the Internet).
Oh no, leftist apologists are very common. How many celebrities have visited Cuba and praised Castro? There's never a shortage. How many leftist organization gush over Cuba's health care system and praise his country as a model? Lots have, and lots still do.
Let me try to put this into perspective from your side of the street.
The "death camps" you describe in Chile are what one would consider comparatively mild re-education camps in most communist countries, including Cuba. General estimates are that 3,000 political prisoners were executed in Cuba during the 1960s alone, roughly the same official records figure as Chile under Pinochet. (Real death camps are just what they imply - camps with the express purpose of working people to death or liquidating "enemies of the people", where instead of a 2-3% death rate the expectation is non-survival. They have been a common fixture in many Marxist countries too).
However mild they may be in comparison to Marxism's and Fascism's outright death camps and forced starvations, it's absolutely true that this level of human rights denial is an awful thing, in Chile or Cuba.
But somehow, Castro is considered a revered leader, and it's OK for leftists to go to his island and gush over the society he has created there, by using the exact same methods (indeed, stricter methods) as Pinochet's Chile (and adding insult to injury, with economic ruin instead of progress to show for it). And its victims? In many cases, not only ignored by deliberately snubbed by the left.
If you find even weighing of relative evils inexcusable with respect to Pinochet, imagine how this stance toward Castro's regime looks from outside the leftist bubble.
Similarly, you could build a strawman who claims the US is responsible for all evil on the planet, but you would have trouble locating even one real live human who believes it."
Actualy, a significant portion of the Left does appear to believe this - or at least to ignore evils on the planet unless they can be connected to the USA. To the point that even leftists like Walzer are pointing it out.
North Korea cheating on nuclear accords? USA's fault for calling them on it and being "uncooperative". Cambodian genocide by communist insurgents? USA's fault, the product of its bombings. Muslims ram airplanes into buildings on 9/11? USA's fault, had it coming, and why do they hate us? Saddam's people starving as he builds palances and buys weapons? USA's fault for sanctions. USA removes Saddam's regime and ends sanctions, revealing a society in disorder? That's the USA's fault too.
Or how about this little on the scene report in October 2001:
Gee, sure seems to fit the profile as far as I can see. Sunera Thoani also said, and I quote:
Got that? The Taliban treat women as something less than cattle, the Iranians will execute a girl for being raped, and what's the big problem for womens' rights? The West. And especially America.
This from a leading Canadian feminist who headed up the Canadian equivalent of NOW - she isn't exactly a nobody, and her erwmarks didn't create so much as a ripple of controversy until they were leaked beyond the left. As you can tell, she was railing against the invasion of Afghanistan at the time (maybe she had a burqua concession or something), a funny thing for a feminist to be doing and a phenomenon that was fairly widespread on the left. So much so that Walzer opens his 2002 article by talking about its prevalence.
It's obvious and pathological. Also immoral and shameful - and deadly to a movement whose only claim to any legitimacy is through morality.
Thorley (#22),
For what it's worth, the infanticide charge is probably true. It wasn't widespread or policy, but the odds are pretty good that it happened in Chile. Can you really say that it didn't?
I'll also note that 3,000 people, 1% of the imprisoned population, were NOT detained and let go. They were executed. That doesn't make it a death camp system, as I point out in my own comment - but does it sound like someplace you'd want to be? I think not.
I'll agree that the genocide charge is obviously hysterical, just like the "death camp" term. Sadly, we've seen too many camps whose charter purpose is death in the communist and fascist worlds over the last century. Even 3,000 victims fails to qualify for such a horrific term - and neither Guantanamo (described by several inmates and families as better than the prions in their native countries) nor Abu Ghraib comes even remotely close. It's such a serious charge that as much as I despise Castro, the concentration camps in Cuba probably don't qualify either (though extreme torture is commonplace).
Again, we see a pattern of utterly hysterical rhetoric as soon as America can be charged with guilt, even indirectly.
Which isn't a lie, so your charge is over the top re: Tom and should be withdrawn. It would be more accurate to say that the rhetoric he used is evidence of underlying hostility and a lack of perspective, which still affects credibility but isn't the same thing as a deliberate lie.
I'm a registered Democrat. I'm moved to despair at times by my Party and those on the left.
What's wrong is wrong. It's wrong for Pinochet and the Argentinian Colonels to toss High School and College kids out of helicopters into the ocean to die (from 5,000 feet). It's wrong for Pol Pot to kill anyone with Western skills in Cambodia. It's wrong for the French to encourage the Interamhamwe militia in the genocide in Rwanda. It's wrong for Nixon and Kissinger to support Pinochet in his coup, and his widespread human rights abuses throughout his rule of terror.
Wrong is wrong when someone who is pro or anti American does it. It's wrong not because of their political orientation, but because of the act itself.
It's right to bring guys like Pinochet, Milosevic, Ratko Miladec, Castro, Saddam, Osama, and a few more I could name to justice. It's time the Left started thinking about simple justice and right and wrong instead of who's politically acceptable.
And understand that all the concern and regret of the UN, Amnesty International, etc. Pol Pot was stopped by the Vietnamese Army who were tired of his crap; the genocide in Rwanda wasn't stopped by the UN (Kofi kept them sitting on their hands) but by other African nations tired of that crap; Tanzania got rid of Idi Amin by invading Uganda; and the US bombed the hell outta Serbia to get rid of Milosevic, and had to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam.
Getting rid of tyrants is never something to be ashamed of. Even when Americans have to do it.
To me, the fundamental difference here is this: for those on the right, it is NOT socially acceptable to be a Nazi-sympathizer or a Pinochet booster or anything of the like. The ideology of the far right has been (rightfully) fully discredited and that is that – no further discussion needed.
It is not the same on the left. All you have to do is attend an anti-war protest, or a liberal college, or go to a dinner party with your nice liberal friends to see that. The ideology of the far left is openly accepted and frequently in plain view. The communist party had booths at most of the “Not In Our Name” rallies, for Pete’s sake. And when you bring up Cuba or Stalin or Mao to these people you get this kind of “yes, but…” response that tells you all you need to know. They don’t get it. Sure, all those dead people were wrong, but… the ideology still has something to it when you think about it.
No, it doesn’t, and until the left fully understands that it must repudiate the kind of thinking that ultimately leads to 100 million plus dead worldwide it will never gain any traction in America. Until the left realizes that, even though socialism has some touchy-feely, sounds-good, wouldn’t it be nice in a perfect world? parts to it, its implementation has, 100% of the time, resulted in the whole-scale practice of evil.
When the left wakes up and begins asking hard questions about the morality of socialism and the practical implementation thereof, then I’ll be willing to listen. Until then, it has nothing to say to me, and nothing to say to most people possessed of common sense.
Tom invites everybody into my tent, without asking: "So if you believe that socialism is dead, perhaps you should just be Republicans and give up the project of telling the Democrats how to restructure."
We'll take Norm Geras, but we don't want any dead socialists in here. Also, we don't want people who can't function normally in life because they're still all broken up over what happened to Salvador Allende thirty years ago. Or people who say "This has all the earmarks of a classic COINTELPRO operation!" every time their toilet backs up.
Those people need to join the Libertarian party, where they have no chance of doing any real damage to society.
Joe Katzman wrote:
Actually Joe, if you go back and read the liar Tom Volckhausen’s original smears he claimed that it was in fact the policy ordered and/or supported by Pinochet (“Clearly Pinochet believed the answer was yes” regarding “infanticide, genocide, gas chambers and death camps”).
Besides which the burden of proof is on those who claim that something did happen not on someone else to prove a negative.
Here is a link to a soldier describing how prisoners were brought to the Santiago stadium and marked for death (not quite the Jewish star but similar)...
"Mr Saldias said prisoners at the stadium were organised in groups identified by yellow, black and red discs.
Whoever received a red disc had no chance (of surviving)," he said."
Marked For Death
Pinochet's admiration for Hitler was publicly expressed and documented, although I am having trouble finding a direct link, so I think I was correct to say that "Is infanticide, genocide, gas chambers and death camps all "morally correct" if it "holds Communism at bay"?
Clearly Pinochet believed the answer was yes."
I did not and do not claim that he actually committed all those crimes, only that he believed them to be morally correct, as apparently do some on this forum.
I agree with Mr. Wishard that this discussion has gone far afield into events 30 years ago.
My own position is exactly that of Jim Rockford, that some acts are wrong and to be condemned, whether they are committed by left or right (ie, there is a higher morality than politics or ideology).
People keep pronouncing the death of socialism, when I think they mean the death of communism. Anybody sane agrees that communism, with state ownership of everything down to toothbrushes is a dead concept. Similarly, extreme laissez-faire capitalism is also a dead ideology with no countries currently practicing it.
All real economic systems have some mix of private and public ownership. Sure, some libertarian loonies will argue for competitive private markets in sewer systems with 20 different companies continuously digging up the streets but nobody really operates that way.
The conflict between left and right is mostly about this division between public/private and its' implementation, which is why Social Security and health policies are germane.
Foreign policy issues do not split so cleanly. Current polls show that 56% of the US public believes the Iraq war was a mistake, with opposition much higher among Democrats. However, plenty of opposition to "pre-emptive war" exists on the right side of the political spectrum as websites like Anti-war.com
show.
Tom, your gift for going off on tangents, independent of what's actually under discussion, continues to impress.
Oscar Facism is leftism
Mousulini had leftist parents, was himself a leftisty radical, and came into politics via his own socialist newspapers and thru the Itallian socialist party.
He also slammed both Hitler and stalin for failing to follow the doctrines of Marx !
Facism takes its root from the roman symbol of authority, the facis, its an oh so Italian logo for his flavor of leftism / socialism.
Mousulini facism was simply his own flavor of socialism, and a way to arrive to his owen vision of utopia.
Name one thing "Right Wing" about Hitler or Mousulini that did not apply to Lenin or Stalin ?
Facism is almost identical to Clintons "Third Way"
.... "Third Way or Third Reich?"
,,,, " What is the Third Way, and why is Bill Clinton pushing it? During the collapse of the Soviet Empire, Mikhail Gorbachev promoted the so-called "Third Way" as an alternative to free markets. This new way of governing would be neither capitalist nor communist, but something in between."
So, is what was rightist in germany Leftist is Sweden ?
Think about that.
Hitler and Musulini might have been to the right of stalin in econimic doctrines (perhaps even intended as temporary)
But to an American Rightist, all those flavors of the left are on the opposite end of us on the freedom <> tyranny scale.
It takes more than private enterprise to impress us.
In freedom, the free market capitalism is an outgrowth, a benificial side effect of, freedom.
You can have capitalism without freedom.
But you cannot have freedom without capitalism.
A free man will want to trade, and you must remove freedom to prevent it.
It is that removal of freedom that we are against.
Your view of history is distorted and your understanding of us is wrong.
Along with this its important to understand that when we point out the horrors of leftism, from it mountain of dead to its mountins of econimic misery and its auto-tendency to opression and depotism, we are attempting to show the more benevolent of you the dangers of the leftist slime bag of bad ideas, that have wrought misery death and the total destruction of hope, for millions and billions.
What we want for all peoples of the world, is what we have, no more no less, freedom, that is core, all the other good things that we have will come natually from freedom, as the benificial side effects.
The left then demand that all the good things that took us 200 years of freedom to get come instantly, sorry, the world of practical possiblity and reality dont work that way.
A free people that allows the influx of capital to build factories and such can accelerate the proccess but even then it might take generations.
Still the best thing that can happen for a people.
The left fail to see that in body count of murdered innocents, the all powerfull state is the most dangerous thing to its own people that has ever existed on earth, and leftist schemes are imposed with gun holding government thugs.
Freedom is better, the state that is there to protect you instead of control you is better.
Thats what the right wing in america is all about, its our core value.
And frankly, there is no tenable political position in opposition to this, in opposition to freedom, there is no claim to morality, its why the left look immoral to us on that central core issue.
Sorry Oscar , that was intended for Tom.
And where did i infer that Pinnocette was an heroic figure ? the man is revolting, but never the less a better alternative than who he deposed who was inviting in Soviet satelite thugs to fully esapbish another stalinist hell hole, a new Cuba of the Americas.
And why isnt Pinnochette still in power if he fully merited US support ?
I would say the liberal democracy left behind in the wake of Agusto is a far better outcome than would have followed the establishment of another Soviet satelite, yet another puppet of the most evil regime ever to exist on earth.
When bagdad McDermot was getting his photo op in his beloved Baath Socialist paradise, was he perhaps standing right on top of the very mass grave of children we unearthed ?
Figurativly, he was.
Raymond wrote:
Good point and it wasn’t just in Chile when we sided with Pinochet versus the Castro-loving Soviet puppet-wannabe Allende where we made the better choice; it was true in Taiwan versus the PRC and South Korea versus North Korea. In each case we allied ourselves with an anti-communist strongman to offset a Marxist one and eventually the country was able to evolve into something far freer and democratic. In contrast the ones that sided with the Marxists (or in which the Marxists won the struggle) pretty much remain oppressive to this day.
Some fast responses to Raymond:
Is it just me, or is this thread going off the rails a bit?
OK, it took some searching but here is Pinochet's Hitler quote, not quite as I remembered it.
"En 1988, el ministro alemán de Trabajo, Norbert Blümm, viajó a Chile en un clara muestra de apoyo a la oposición democrática y se entrevistó con el dictador. Pinochet, arrogante, le dijo que se sentía injustamente difamado, tan injustamente como lo fue Hitler. Sorprendido, Blümm consultó por qué. Pinochet le indicó entonces que, según su conocimiento de la historia, Hitler no había matado a seis millones de judíos, sino solamente a cuatro. Una sola persona habría bastado para condenarlo, replicó el ministro alemán. Cuatro millones. Usted no entiende la diferencia, concluyó Pinochet."From El Pais Feb28,1998
Basically, Pinochet said he was misunderstood and defamed, just as Hitler was.Blum asked why. Pinochet said Hitler had killed only 4 million Jews,not 6 Million. And that " You just do not understand the difference".
So Pinochet expressed sympathy for Hitler and compared himself to Hitler, but he did not express support for Hitler' methods, althought he did use some of them.
It should be pointed out that the link provided by Tom Volckhausen – who has already proven himself to be a liar – does not in fact provide a single quote from Augusto Pinochet.
Joe
I like the bullet points .
" I cannot disagree more strongly with the idea that Clinton & Blair's "Third Way" is equivalent to Benito Mussolini. "
No, they are not equals, not any more than Sweden is equal to the Soviet Union, In my mind, the reader should understand this and still see what im attempting to illuminate, that the left still cling to their marxist roots even after dramatic failure. We wont see an iron curtain around Sweden or Eurosocialist Eurabia will we? (pardon the pun). And this openness undermines their ability to stay socialist. But we also see they shrug past marxist attrocity, and this informs us they are little different in moral standards than the butchers they excuse.
The right give no excuse for Agusto, the man is revolting, if his supporters knew what he would do that offended those of us that are actually offended by such crimes, whould we have looked for another ? Fact is we couldnt know.
We have a more recent embarrasment in Saddam, there was a time when the west supported this monster, what I dont understand is why we are being opposed for dealing with this offence to humanity.
It tells you, that if Pinnocet had refused to step down, and we then had to go in and depose him with out troops, the reflexive dependable anti-american left would be equally condemming us for taking down Agusto.
Its their inability to have a sense of right and wrong independent from opposition to America that seems so informative for me. as well as their dependable support for any monster butcher who heralds the leftist cause.
The sense of right and wrong detached from politics seems not to be in the left.
" Agree re: the connections between Communism & Fascism."
They are branches of the same tree, the roots are under the same trunk, adaptations on the same marxist medthod of reasoning even when not featuring the same themes.
Facism is Mousulinis word, his logo, and his entire History leading up to power was as a Socialist radical, his idea of the need for a strongman in charge of an all powerfull state was to hurry along socialist goals that he was in infustration over waiting too long for.
But this state control of the economy via Facist means, ie Benito Or Adolph, is that all that different from Stalin ? the main operational detail difference is state ownership.
Im on the other side of ALL of that, why is it so hard to see the same pitfalls in Communism in slow motion vs Progressives in a hurry ?
since you ware taken to the same end whats the difference ?
"Third Way or Third Reich?"
Some leftists have forsaken the idea of total state control, eg USSR, and decided on other form of state control, Bill Clintons, Tony Bliars, M Gorbachovs, "Third Way"
Its Mousulini and Hitlers Economic program without the gas chambers, but not, as you can see, without its scapegoats they still target as "ememies of the people"
The reason it should be seen with equal potential for evil is that there is no consideration for freedom or individual liberty at the core of this new leftist fad, its a new pragmatic political calcultion, with the same morally obtuse marxist goals.
" Not all the right holds freedom as a top value, even in America. The right is not monolithic"
And most all of them are seen, or should be, as kooks, the right has its fringe kooks.
Could they withstand an open honest debate with us any better than the leftist kooks ?
If its possible that I am far to the right of A.L. , not that I detect a great distance between us, could I not tear apart those right wing kooks as easy as I suspect Marc could ?
" Likewise, it is possible to base a political movement on a different hierarchy of values"
I dont care what is on top as long as it exists in full force.
I would like you to entertain the idea, that one reasons the left seems immoral, that if take reflexive positions of imorality based on political calcualtion in defiance of any perception that a any moral principles can exist, that they are simply as morally obtuse as they seem.
Its just another manifastation of ends justify means, they have morals when its poltically an atvange to have them, and when morals would slow the advance or discredit their leftist faith, you then find out the intristic value of the coinage.
I would ask you to look again at the writings at the title of this discussion.
Is there not room for a perspective, that Michael Walzer is equally concerned about perception of morality or lack therof as actually having any moral principles ?
Look closly again, is he lamenting the makeup OF, or that makeup ON, his movement ?
Can you see that you cannot totaly exclude one or the other ? that in fact there is some equality of weight?
What his he lamenting, the lack or morals ? or the perception thereof ?
If i look broader, including the very examples he is lamenting, should i interpet the left as having a morals deficit ? or that they suffer perception problem, that all would be sweetness and light if they had better PR and propaganda.
Should this moral defict inform us how they react to crimes against humanity?
I know this is broad brush painting, its intentional, those that dont think they belong under those strokes probably dont, but is not it clear enough that they should never the less reexamine the sump pit filled with the blood of 100+ Million people that idology came from?
It seems they are all worried about the image problem, not the actual lack of morals.
If they had actual morals, would not the perception problem fix iself ?
Nothing can show an "image" that you hold Moral principles like actually having and following them.
Such a moral code would not allow BagDad McDermit to stand on the sands covering mass graves of murdered kids opposing the most Moral Country presently on earth and in support of one of the most evil ones that put those kids under the ground where you stand.
Hey lefties, we found mass graves of children ..
Look here, killing fields of Kids
left response: "No Blood For Oil, Bushitler!"
They make my case for me, they really do.
We're getting pretty tangential to the original discussion. I'm having an internal debate that says "forget it, walk away - or continue given the thin connections present". But I think I see some roots of Raymond's issue, and it has maps on the left side of the spectrum, so let's continue for now.
Its Mousulini and Hitlers Economic program without the gas chambers, but not, as you can see, without its scapegoats they still target as "ememies of the people"
Saying Clinton is Mussolini in slow motion is no different from saying Bush = the Taliban in slow motion, and just as foolish.
Also, just as discrediting in public debate among reasonable people.
The key disconnect here is a basic misunderstanding of how politics works. What you're looking at is simply politics, which sees a certain conception of good and must therefore be opposed to other interests as part of its appeal and positioning. This tendency has been true since long before socialism even existed. By Roman times, it was already an ancient truism.
To conflate this into a huge Marxist conspiracy somehow is to sound like... well.. the loonier sections of the left these days.
Finally, I'll point out that given the narrow policy differences between W. & Clinton when looked at on the full political spectrum, every argument you're using to say Clinton's Third Way = Third Reich could be used equally to say Bush = Third Reich.
And you know, it's still a stupid thing to say.
I've noticed that people on the right or left who conflate their elected leaders with totalitarian dictators share a common flaw: they don't really understand fascism. Which may explain why they're so surprised when people complain.
Mussolini and Hitler's program were TOTAL in nature, just as Communism was, and you obviously have no idea what that means. That program was a complete system, whose realization depended on each aspect of their prescriptions being adopted.
There is good literature on the corrosive role of big government and overreliance on planning, and the danger of tyranny thus presented (for reasons that do not even require an animating Marxist ideology). But your collapse of the system into a "Clinton is Fascism without the gas chambers" caricature leaves you utterly stranded when it comes to counter-approaches and solutions, because you've cut youraelf off from seeing the important differences. Many leftists do this too, with roughly the same consequences:
But we are "truth tellers," they say, who are just being "persecuted". I guess it's easier than saying "I'm an asshole, I say poorly thought-through things using poorly-constructed arguments that accuse my opponents of the most monstrous crimes, and I alienate fair-minded people."
Seeing the occasional strained parallel here or there won't do when one makes such a monstrous comparison as "Third Way = Third Reich". And it is truly monstrous.
The reason it should be seen with equal potential for evil is that there is no consideration for freedom or individual liberty at the core of this new leftist fad, its a new pragmatic political calcultion, with the same morally obtuse marxist goals.
There is, I would argue, not enough concern for it. That is not the same thing as saying there is none. This collapse of distinctions turns a potentially effective argument into a foolish one.
Programmatic political calculation will be in politics forever, so that means nothing to me.
As for the Democrats' goals being Marxist, this is the right-wing version of DailyKos' "14 Signs of a Fascist State" idiocy. It squares neither with the evidence, nor with an accurate understanding of Marxism/Fascism.
Raymond, have you ever been involved in a real political campaign, or taken much time to see how politics works first hand? You really sound like have no exposure at all to the real thing.
And I think I'm pretty close to done with this thread.
Tom says:
This strikes me as an accurate summary based on the quote provided. I would add:
If the Left treated Castro the way they treat Pinochet, it would take a big step toward resolving many of its moral deficits.
Joe:
Okay, im guilty of over-reach, take what tattered remains are left after you have ripped my presentation to shreads ...
And ... Thats what i meant !
No, I have no experience in politics.
A good metaphor of my intent would be this.
I see some chap holding a grenade we can call "Leftist solutions to the worlds problems".
There is nothing inherrently evil about this fellow, he is simply inaware of the proven effects of Grenades.
How do I attempt to convince the guy that its a bad idea to pull the pin on that grenade.
I can look back on history and see evidence of the effects of both grenades and leftism.
The poor fellow thinks its the solution to his problems, in a way he is right, after the grenade has fulfilled the mission it was created for, he will indeed be freed from his problems.
If history is a teacher, why are not 100+ Million deaths sufficient to discredit its cause ?
"I'm an asshole, I say poorly thought-through things using poorly-constructed arguments that accuse my opponents of the most monstrous crimes, and I alienate fair-minded people."
If they was false accusations i could agree with that.
Germans had no "jew-killer" genome in their DNA, they was/are people just like you and me.
It was the ideas that was evil, hitler went thru 3 elections, the last one that gave him full authority was with 90% of the vote !
And even today, Stalin has a troublingly large support in the USSR, not enough to win power if he suddenly sprang back to life, or, well, im not so sure.
The poor fellow holding the grenade is most likely no demon, but he is convinced that he should pull the pin and we should all embrace it, in a sexy love hug on the exploding pineapple.
Freedom is hard to win, hardly ever comes without lots of spilled blood and misery, its had to keep, it would require death and misery multiplied to win back if lost given todays realitys.
Fair minded he might be, but he wants to pull the damn pin on that f****g grenade.
In reality, that handheld bomb is only a danger to him, and if im too close, me.
Those marxist ideas on the other hand, have murdered Millions, and wroght oppression misery and crushed dreams, no worse than that, snuffed out the ability to have any dreams, of billions.
There are a moral lessons, and moral judgements, thruout all of this, of the kind where there is only one morally tennable side.
In many of them there is no equally valueable moral position, unless its a definition of objective truth of good and evil.
All viewpoints are not equal, that poor fellow is about to find an objective truth in that grenade, Well at least he went out "fair-minded"
Leftist ideas are far more dangerous.
Tom,
" Equating the "socialists" of Sweden and the Netherlands with Stalin is an exercize in replacing the most basic thought process with blind ideology. [....] Chavez, Lula, and Socialist parties throughout Europe and Latin America [..] Chile is about to elect a new Socialist government. Will the CIA have to bankroll a new Pinochet to overthrow it? "
Invade Iraq and not "evil leftist" Sweden? (yes its intended to sound absurd)
One of the posts on the Iraq the model,
last week, I crossed the borders for the first time in my life; something may sound less than regular for most of you but for an Iraqi dentist or doctor it was a beautiful dream becoming a reality.
Countless numbers of Iraqi doctors, dentists, officers and professionals carrying Msc or Phd ended up in prison or even lost their lives for trying to get passports (faked ones of course and at a very high cost) to get out of Saddam’s hell."
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html
Swedens leftist government isnt evil because it does not do things like this, Socialist states like the old USSR, Cuba, North Korea et al, turn their country into a national Gulag of sorts, ( complete with even more horrible places, actual Gulags, therein) where getting cought escaping can mean death, or internment in a hellish gulag where death comes slow.
Sweden is not so "evil" because its borders do not imprison the citizens, as long as they tolerate the automatic brain drain and exodus of talent looking for a better life where his earnings will not be confiscated, remain democratic, no gulags etc, the regime retains its legitamacy.
Swedish leftist in power have been unwilling to dispose of democracy or erect Soviet style fences and machine gun turrets to prevent what is fully underway in Sweden and leftist kleptocratic states elsewhere.
It undemines their ability to maintain socialism, but at least if they tire of it, the voters can change it, as difficult as that will be.
So clearly, invading Sweden is "immoral" as long as the people therin remain free, at least to the extent where they can vote with their feet, no gulags, no mass graves, the question is absurd.
I would welcome the swedish talented expats wanting to escape the crushing leftism there to the good ole USA, where we can always use the vitality of talented people wanting to breathe free. and see them keep the rewards of their talent and live the American dream.
Invade Chile if they go socialist again ?
Depends, there is no more USSR, just their old satelites like Castro.
If they start inviting in commie thugs and go on to Stalinize the country, you damn right we would be correct to overthrow it again.
Same goes for Chaves in Venesuela btw, we are watching whats going on there too.
Depends on the model they use, the Sweden model would be perfectly acceptable, a mistake, but free people, must be free to make mistakes!, the Cuban model would merit doom by American power, directly or indirectly.
So that too, is a moral issue.
Yeah, I was a bit ticked off. Where to start, Raymond? Areas of agreement.
Yes, normal people can and will do evil things if put in an environment that supports it. They'll be guards in Russian camps, in German camps. They'll murder and rape children in cold blood as a Vietcong, or throw a kid out of a helicopter at 5,000 feet as an Argentinian soldier. The ideology may not even be that relevant - see Milgram's psychology experiments, for instance.
It's good to trust your neighbour, therefore - but not too much. Depending on human decency to counter abuse in an "ideal" but unlimited system isn't reliable, and Hayek further explains why such systems tend to go to hell quickly. That's why it's important to protect liberties large and small from government power, acknowledging that some power is required but being cautious of its expansion because of the nature of government. Marxists, like fascists, are naturally of special concern, but the concern about government power applies beyond them.
I take it we're still on the same page so far?
While there is a role for judgment and necessity in the cutthroat world of international relations, the problem I've just described is also why it's important NOT to give systems a moral pass because their expressed ideals are congenial.
This chain of reasoning thus brings us back to the need for a decent left which no longer offers routine passes for congenial abusers. (Congenial being defined as "hates America" these days rather than by any sort of ideal corresponding to human progress, a trait that makes these passes doubly shameful for a movement that claims the mantle of morality as the underpinning for its advice.)
This was the point of my blog post, one Hanson, Geras & Marcuse expressed in different ways. What I've set out above, however, is a deeper rationale based on classical liberal principles we both seem to agree on.
But this very reasoning also raises questions about the limits of means one will use to forestall communism (for instance), and what a "decent right" looks like as well. I would agree that the "lives lost under communism" calculus is legitimate and important, for reasons that I'll call the "Dead Zone argument" after Stephen King's book. But it's not the only criterion, for reasons relating to the inherent nature of government power, future uncertainties (both of which apply equally to the need for limits in trying to achieve any sort of political utopia), and the value of liberty cultures and democratic ideals as powerful weapon that truly fights ideological fire with fire.
Consider the general concept that anything may not go, therefore, because after a certain point what you're supposedly fighting for becomes meaningless. The question then becomes at what point that happens, and what are the guidelines for making those kinds of judgments in each situation. That would get us into a long and very tangential discussion that would parallel the right's last 25 years of evolution on this topic, so let's just leave the idea of "anything doesn't go, and other things may matter too" as a conceptual level thought and focus instead on your direct question.
What do you do to stop someone from "pulling the pin" on a stupid idea?
Stepping directly from Clinton to Marxism is kind of like saying, when asked how something works or doesn't, that "God is responsible". If you believe in God, that's always true. It's not an answer, though, just a religious statement. Which helps to explain why freeing science from religion let us make so much progress in creating stuff that actually works.
We hear that sort of religious answer a lot from the left, you know, and it's often the same crowd that will say things like Bush = Hitler. That isn't an accident. Bush = Hitler just means Bush is the living incarnation of their religious taboo transgressed, or of the force opposed to their deity figure. Hence a Satan figure. Hence the Hitler references. That's dumb, but that's how it works. There are times you sound like that yourself, with the Clinton and Stalinism bit.
Don't go there. It won't stop anyone from pulling the pin unless they were already fellow believers - and if they were, your help is unnecessary.
What if, instead, the focus was on the specific mechanics. X is a bad idea that will lead to [these direct consequences, based on these past experiences of similar specific proposals]. Human nature also makes it problematic because [insert and back up theory of human behaviour or related discipline like economics here, and make sure you discuss only the part directly relevant to the suggestion].
By staying on this level, you avoid "religious taboo" and "political Satan" responses (those exist, vid. Kim Jong-Il, but they're not leading any mainstream U.S. political party and won't be). You're also forced to draw yourself into the mechanics of how policy plays out, and the deeper free market critiques of exactly how these things go wrong when implemented. Which leads you to recognize limits and countervailing forces to government power, and so see, at last, why unlike Bill Clinton, a Marxist program MUST smash the state because that's the only way to overcome all the small (and sometimes deep) obstacles that you yourself leverage to fight for liberty. THAT is why they have to do so very much damage, and kill so many.
Once that's recognized, the difference between Clinton and Marxism becomes clearer - and so does the importance of certain boundaries. Hence the depth of the danger and depravity that politicism represents. So you'll never even think of calling Clinton a Marxist again, but you'll end up hating real Marxists more.
I personally view every full-on Marxist, Fascist, or other form of politicist as a potential murderer waiting for an environment in which to happen. Unless they show signs of a serious rethink and possible "Kronstadt moment", therefore, I abandon any idea of convincing them or arguing with them one on one, and focus only on defeating them in the public sphere.
You don't have to be soft to be intelligent about this stuff, and you don't have to abandon your principles. But you may have to abandon some disastrous and untrue preconceptions and habits. Something I wish the Left would do, too.
FG: "And that's all I have to say about that"
I think it's time for this thread to die but I wanted to post one very relevant link. It is not safe to assume the everyone who opposed the Iraq war is against all military action. Certainly, I and almost the whole Democratic party strongly supported the actions against Al Quaeda and their Taliban host in Afghanistan.
Worldchanging.com has a great interview from Bartlett at the Naval War College about a framework for the neccessity and success of military intervention. As Jim Rockford said, sometimes military force is the only option for removal of a tyrant, however the purely military aspect is almost always insufficient for success.
Anyway Security and Development should probably be linked on your front page.
Jeez, it's doubled. Someone used to put the number thirty-one million, and I said it's way too high, but lo and behold, now even that is passé. Raymond, you're nuts. Sixty-one million! -- that would mean every fourth guy there (and even that, relative to the historical high-water mark). Of course, you know better (who am I to say, I only grew up there), but just do the math. Either that, or make it more impressive, make it sixty-one trillion. Who cares, we're after big numbers, right?
Warum
Correct the numbers have climbed as we learned
My numbers come from R J Rummel
http://www.freedomsnest.com/rumrud.html
Rudolph Rummel is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii. He has spent his career studying wars, conflicts, and governmental mass murder, for which he has coined the term democide.
Among Rummel's more startling findings is that the death toll from government mass murder is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying some 8,193 reports of government killing, Rummel estimates that there have been 169,198,000 victims of democide in the last century, as against some 38,000,000 killed in war. Four times as many people have been murdered in cold blood by people working for governments than have died in battle.
Tom
Sure. lots of ways to topple a regime ...
How many of them have the best chances of installing a democracy?
Bush is attacking one of the "root-causes" by planting democracies in downtown tyranny central.
I success assured ? nope.
However, if we pull it off, Bush will go down as not only a great president but as a great man of all time.
That is what the left fears most, again its a political calculation, they would send off 50 million people off to their doom for political gain.
And the best confirming testamony come from liberals themselves, snearing defeatist "BusHitler" moonbats who would be cheerleading the whole affair if it had been Al Gore that did the same thing.
How would we act ? look during the kosovo conflict, once the fight started, you remember republican sniping ? at all ? much less like the moonbats are doing.
But of course, thats due to a principle that we hold not to undermine our troops while they are in action.
The antiwar people kill our troops by giving hope to our adversaries, John Kerry co-ordinated with the Vietcong, ( now proven by captured documents he acted as an agent for a regime guilty of crimes agaist humanity, the Vietcong murdered by quota!
Can you day treason !
.... " The lower class peasants were instructed to choose which of their fellow villagers fell into this category, and kill them. The central government laid down a death quota- 5 percent of the population of each village were to be killed."
http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_vietnam.html
Kerry gave aid and confort to a perp of Crimes Against Humanity. and changed the status of our POWs by his false accusations. and extended the time of their imprisonment and torture by two years, meaning 100s of them did not make it home because of John Kerry.
What a treasonous waste of skin scumbag
Kerry is lower than a child molester
The future of 50 million people hang in the ballance, a future in freedom or a future of more tyrannical opression.
The left and the fake-news-leftist-anything-to-damage-bush media is doing everything they can to undermine and make sure that we fail .. they dont care about the hopes of 50 million people.
What the left wants is for the USA to fail, and for all those people to be doomed, if a million perished nothing would make them happier.
The media and the left celebrate every death, because advancment of their political aims depends on the suffering and loss of others to be used as political ammunition against Bush.
Look how the left, before the wars spent their hours waiting for bad economic news.
Now, "the worst economy since Hoover" in reality, has now made itself beyond debate as a strong recovery from the Clinton recession, the 911 hit, and redirection of resources to security.
The democraps knew better, but its simple ... they are lieing lowlife sacks of scum wishing for failure and hoping for misery, because bad news is good news for them, and good news is bad for them.