Jump to content

Love, Peace, and the War on Afganistan


CommanderJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Menchise that was actually a well thought out reply. If only the type of government you intended were a Republic in the manner our founding fathers envisioned I would go along with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My turn for story time.

quote:

Socialism and war

The present century has been a century of wars. Some 10 million people were killed in the First World War, 55 million in the Second, 2 million in the wars of Indochina. And the two great nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, still possess the means to destroy the human race many times over.

Explaining this horror is difficult for those who take existing society for granted. They are driven to conclude that there is some innate, instinctive drive in human beings that leads them to enjoy mass slaughter. But human society has not always known war. Gordon Childe noted of Europe in the Stone Age:

The earliest Danubians seem to have been a peaceful folk; weapons of war as against hunters' tools are absent from their graves. Their villages lacked military defenses. [but] in the later phases of the neolithic period armaments became the most conspicuous items...

War is not caused by some innate human aggressiveness. It is a product of the division of society into classes. When, between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago, a class of property owners first emerged, it had to find the means to defend its wealth. It began to construct armed forces, a state, cut off from the rest of society. This then became a valuable means of further increasing its wealth, by plundering other societies.

The division of society into classes meant that war became a permanent feature of human life.

The slave owning ruling classes of Ancient Greece and Rome could not survive without continual wars which procured more slaves. The feudal lords of the Middle Ages had to be heavily armed in order to subdue the local serfs and to protect their loot from other feudal lords. When the first capitalist ruling classes began 300 or 400 years ago, they too repeatedly had to have recourse to war. They had to fight bitter wars in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries in order to establish their supremacy over the remnants of the old feudal rulers. The most successful capitalist countries, such as Britain, used warfare to expand their wealth - reaching overseas, looting India and Ireland, transporting millions of people as slaves from Africa to the Americas, turning the whole world into a source of plunder for themselves.

Capitalist society built itself through war. No wonder that those who lived within it came to believe that war was both 'inevitable' and 'just'.

Yet capitalism could never be based entirely on war. Most of its wealth came through exploiting workers in factories and mines. And that was something which could be disrupted by any fighting within the 'home country' itself.

Each national capitalist class wanted peace at home while waging war abroad. So while encouraging belief in 'military virtues' it also bitterly attacked 'violence'. The ideology of capitalism combines, in a completely contradictory way, exaltation of militarism and pacifist phrases.

In the present century war preparations have become more central to the system than ever before. In the 19th century capitalist production was based on many small firms competing with each other. The state was a relatively small body that regulated their relations with each other and with their workers. But in the present century big firms have eaten up most of the small firms, so eliminating much of the competition within each country. Competition is more and more international, between the giant firms of different nations.

There is no international capitalist state to regulate this competition. Instead, each national state exerts all the pressure it can to help its capitalists get an advantage over their foreign rivals. The life and death struggle of different capitalists with each other can become the life and death struggle of different states, each with its huge array of destructive weaponry.

Twice this struggle has led to world war. The First and Second World Wars were imperialist wars, conflicts between alliances of capitalist states over the domination of the globe. The Cold War was a continuation of that struggle, with the most powerful capitalist states lined up against each other in NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

In addition to this global conflict, many hot wars have raged in different parts of the world. Usually they have been struggles between different capitalist states over who should control a particular region, such as the Iran-Iraq war which broke out in 1980 and the Gulf War in 1991. All the major powers stoke the fires of war by selling the most sophisticated military technology to Third World states.

Many people who accept the rest of the capitalist system do not like this grim reality. They want capitalism but not war. They try to find alternatives within the system. For example, there are those who believe that the United Nations can prevent war.

But the UN is merely the arena where different states that embody the drive to war meet together. There they compare their strengths with each other, like boxers measuring up before a bout. If one state or alliance is easily more powerful than another, then both will see the pointlessness of a war whose outcome is known in advance. But if there is any doubt about the outcome, they know of only one way of settling the issue, and that is to go to war.

This was true of the two great nuclear alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Even though the West had the military edge over the Eastern Bloc, the gap was not so great for the Russians to believe themselves at a hopeless disadvantage. So, despite the fact that a Third World War would wipe out most of the human race, both Washington and Moscow drew up plans for fighting and winning a nuclear war.

The Cold War came to an end with the political upheaval in Eastern Europe in 1989 and the collapse of the USSR into its constituent republics in 1991. There was then much talk of a 'new world order' and a 'peace dividend'.

Instead, however, we have seen a succession of barbaric wars - the war of the West against its former ally Iraq, the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the former USSR, the horrific civil wars in Somalia and former Yugoslavia.

No sooner is one military rivalry between capitalist powers resolved than another takes its place. Everywhere, ruling classes know that war is a way of increasing their influence and of blinding workers and peasants with nationalism.

You can loathe and fear war without opposing capitalist society. But you cannot end it. War is the inevitable product of the division of society into classes. The threat of it will never be ended by begging existing rulers to make peace. The armaments have to be wrested from their hands by a movement fighting to overturn class society once and for all.

The peace movements which emerged in Europe and North America at the end of the 1970s did not understand this. They fought to stop the introduction of Cruise and Pershing missiles, for unilateral disarmament, for a nuclear freeze. But they believed that the fight for peace could succeed in isolation from the struggle between capital and labour.

So they failed to mobilise the only power capable of stopping the drive towards war, the working class. Only socialist revolution can end the horror of war.

- Chris Harman, 1997


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buckthesystem,

Interesting link, I would say to them exactly what I say to most liberals who post stuff like that.

WAR IS HELL, PEOPLE DIE!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

Yes, civilians will die, there will be women and children killed, there will be collateral damage, there is NO getting around it. But if civilians are going to remain in a war zone, they take thier chances.

AGAIN!!

WAR IS HELL, PEOPLE DIE!! DEAL WITH IT!!

Repeat after me!! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menchise, I thank you for REPEATING YOUR POSITION YET AGAIN IGNORING WHAT I SAID, so I shall repeat myself, and then relate it again to your "story"

1. How would you carry out this "fundamental change."

2. Your argument is counter-intuitive. You say that the whole system of geopolitics needs to be abolished, but how exactly would you do that?

3. Ok, so your saying right now, the system is evil/wrong. How do you know that any other system, which is untried, would work?

4. Your naming problems with no solutions. Go to Congress, and get them to write a bill stating "the whole concept of states and political/economic hierarchies be abolished". They would laugh you out of their sight so fast it's not even funny. Not because of the geopolitical mindset, because it's a mandate with NO POSSIBLE WAY OF BEING CARRIED OUT.

5. Example of the lunacy: We need world peace in order to advance as a society, otherwise we wont. Ok, great, we need world peace....that's nice.....HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET IT? Sure, the concept may be nice, but it's impossible to achieve, just like the idea of "Abolishing the geopolitical/statist systems of the world"

Fine, I believe the argument. The idea of nations and governments is based on the idea of protection of property owners and people with wealth and domination/power of some over others. I can even see how the WTC attacks are directly caused by it. I see how at some point, the greatness of the problem never existed (I'm sure there were still fights over food, women, etc, at the time you mentioned). I also see that it's HUMAN NATURE. Until one side totally wins in a struggle for global dominance, it will never work. However, you still have not presented me with an ALTERNATIVE with means of implementation. You keep saying that capitalism, etc, is bad/root of evil, but you never say how it can be done away with in the status quo. Also, does your author take into account that it may be human nature to try to achieve protection and fight for better food, money, jobs, property, etc? (As I said, i'm sure that in your scenario of peace, there was still fighting over women, it just evolved into fighting over nations and beliefs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Also, does your author take into account that it may be human nature to try to achieve protection and fight for better food, money, jobs, property, etc?

Yes he does. He also takes into account how the division of classes creates a situation where such fighting and/or competition is required for survival. If it wasn't required, it would be human nature not to choose such a bloody path. "When, between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago, a class of property owners first emerged, it had to find the means to defend its wealth...This then became a valuable means of further increasing its wealth, by plundering other societies."

quote:

As I said, i'm sure that in your scenario of peace, there was still fighting over women, it just evolved into fighting over nations and beliefs

How can you be so sure?

quote:

1. How would you carry out this "fundamental change."

2. Your argument is counter-intuitive. You say that the whole system of geopolitics needs to be abolished, but how exactly would you do that?

Worker's revolution.

quote:

3. Ok, so your saying right now, the system is evil/wrong. How do you know that any other system, which is untried, would work?

Because an international socialist system not only facilitates a classless society, it also abolishes private property. Without private property to defend and regulate, the state has no meaning, no reason for existence. The new situation makes it mutually beneficial for workers of different nations to work and live together in peace rather than compete and/or fight each other.

quote:

4. Your naming problems with no solutions. Go to Congress, and get them to write a bill stating "the whole concept of states and political/economic hierarchies be abolished". They would laugh you out of their sight so fast it's not even funny. Not because of the geopolitical mindset, because it's a mandate with NO POSSIBLE WAY OF BEING CARRIED OUT.

...no possible way of being carried out by Congress or any state entity, because it goes against their interests. That's why a worker's revolution is the way: it is within their interests to do so, and a united working class is the most powerful force available to the human race.

quote:

5. Example of the lunacy: We need world peace in order to advance as a society, otherwise we wont. Ok, great, we need world peace....that's nice.....HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET IT? Sure, the concept may be nice, but it's impossible to achieve, just like the idea of "Abolishing the geopolitical/statist systems of the world"

It would be lunacy to continue with the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Worker's revolution.

Let's hope Joe Blow stays happy with his six pack and television, because as long as he has that it doesn't appear he'll do too much revolting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, "Workers revolution." Ok, please clarify what this "world socialist system would entail" Last I checked, socialism bred atrocities, was empirically proven to not work, squelshes individuality, destroys advancement of society, and would be impossible to implement, due to there not being enough nutcases who believe in it. As I said, give me a FEASIBLE alternative that wouldnt end in all hell breaking loose. Oh, and by the way, how exactly is that going to solve the Taliban who hate America because we arent Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Last I checked, socialism bred atrocities, was empirically proven to not work, squelshes individuality, destroys advancement of society, and would be impossible to implement, due to there not being enough nutcases who believe in it.

There are many interpretations of the scope of socialism. The philosophies that bred atrocities, squelched individuality, and don't work (Stalinism and Maoism) are essentially endangered, so I tend to assume that socialism does not include those groups anymore, especially when elements of the left wing community (such as the Trotskyites) don't even recognize them as socialist. If you want a more in-depth description of why Stalinism and Maoism are not true socialisms, I can give you one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The principles of Democracy in the USA does not make it a democracy. In the reverce token, the fact that it is not a democracy does not mean we don't have the principles of a democracy. True democracy cannot exist.

By the same token - the principles of Socialism in the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China did not make them Socialist. But that doesn't mean the principles of Socialism weren't represented. True Communism/Socialism cannot exist.

When I say cannot, I do mean CURRENTLY cannot exist.

When human beings evolve to the next level is the only time your argument will be valid and not wishful thinking.

In my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

By the same token - the principles of Socialism in the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China did not make them Socialist. But that doesn't mean the principles of Socialism weren't represented.

Stalinist USSR and Maoist China did not have comprehensive socialist principles. They did not have social equality, and production was not geared toward the needs of the people.

In Milovan Djilas' phrase, a 'new class' of party-state bureaucrats emerged who enjoyed a status and privileges equivalent to those of the capitalist class in western societies. In the eyes of its left-wing critics, Soviet planning amounted to little more than a system of state capitalism.

State Capitalism: A system of state ownership which replicates capitalist class relationships by concentrating economic power in the hands of a party-state elite.

- Andrew Heywood, 1997

Stalinism and Maoism replaced one class division with another, contradicting with socialist principles. Secondly, the elite bureaucrats of the Soviet Communist party were given special privileges that are not available to the working class, hence the absence of social equality. Production was geared toward competing with the Western powers for economic and military dominance instead of serving the needs of the working class. Stalinism tried to spread "revolution" using the methods of a ruling class (economic and military competition) instead of spreading revolution through the support of workers' revolts.

In conclusion, not only is Stalinism and Maoism not socialist, they contradict with socialist principles.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet they rode to power spouting the same ideals you are speaking of. Kind of ironic isn't it?

Do you think it's possible that they actually believed in your system, but once in power realized that they would be killed if they didn't maintain control, and realized the people wouldn't go for that kind of system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, um, you keep saying what socialism ISNT, but how exactly would a world socialist community, or worker's revolution or WHATEVER ALTERNATIVE YOUR ADVOCATING, actually be done, and when done, how would it stop terrorism, and has it ever been done before which is the point of this thread. It doesn't seem feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Yet they rode to power spouting the same ideals you are speaking of. Kind of ironic isn't it?

Not really. Nearly all politicians spout ideals when they're not in power. Whether they apply themselves to those ideals once they get there or not is the important thing. Stalin did not (unlike Lenin and Trotsky) and neither did Mao.

quote:

Do you think it's possible that they actually believed in your system, but once in power realized that they would be killed if they didn't maintain control, and realized the people wouldn't go for that kind of system?

They may have believed that they were socialist, but that does not mean that they were.

Secondly, Mao had the support of the people when he forced Jiang from power in 1949.

quote:

Ok, um, you keep saying what socialism ISNT, but how exactly would a world socialist community, or worker's revolution or WHATEVER ALTERNATIVE YOUR ADVOCATING, actually be done, and when done, how would it stop terrorism, and has it ever been done before which is the point of this thread. It doesn't seem feasible.

I thought I already explained this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I called you a liberal at first Menchise - even before I knew your political stance. You talk just like one .

There are no direct questions to you, and you don't believe you are giving evasive answers.

Everythings rhetorical.

quote:

Not really. Nearly all politicians spout ideals when they're not in power. Whether they apply themselves to those ideals once they get there or not is the important thing. Stalin did not (unlike Lenin and Trotsky) and neither did Mao.


and

quote:

Do you think it's possible that they actually believed in your system, but once in power realized that they would be killed if they didn't maintain control, and realized the people wouldn't go for that kind of system?

It kind of reminds me of Ralph Nader. The fact that he didn't fit in exactly with their ideology didn't seem to bother a lot of the Green Party members.

What if Socialism does come about in name, through a party you support, and even a leader you support, until he shows his true colors?

What have you accomplished but throwing us backwards into the circle of violence again?

No system is perfect, and no system is going to stop terrorism. The only thing that is going to stop the terrorists is to kill them. And if any more sprout up, kill them too.

Read 1984 and tell me that isn't what your socialism would turn into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

That's why I called you a liberal at first Menchise - even before I knew your political stance. You talk just like one.

There are no direct questions to you, and you don't believe you are giving evasive answers.

Everythings rhetorical.

I don't really care what you think I sound like. I know that I am not giving evasive answers or empty rhetoric.

quote:

What if Socialism does come about in name, through a party you support, and even a leader you support, until he shows his true colors?

What have you accomplished but throwing us backwards into the circle of violence again?

The rise of Stalinism and the "circle of violence" that followed was the result of two mistakes made by Lenin when he created the party-state apparatus:

1. He concentrated too much power in the party.

2. He did not implement adequate checks on that power.

Learning from mistakes is how a concept moves forward.

quote:

Read 1984 and tell me that isn't what your socialism would turn into.

You don't know what my socialism is. Even I am not sure which group or category I would fit in to, although I am definitely not a Stalinist or a Leninist.

Secondly, Orwell's 1984 is not an exploration of socialism or communism in general: it's an exploration of Stalinism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm sure any Socialist uprising would be flawless without any mistakes.

Lenin made mistakes, and he was a highly intelligent person who actually LED a worker's revolution. Yet someone in his party simply spouted the ideas and used it to come to power.

And I don't believe you have shown how a worker's uprising is going to stop terrorism. Your supposed fixes for the world's problems are so overly broad and overlook any fine details. Thus is the nature of socialism, and thus it would fail.

Orwell was a commited Socialist, but even he realized that the system's good intentions were TOO good to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Lenin made mistakes, and he was a highly intelligent person who actually LED a worker's revolution. Yet someone in his party simply spouted the ideas and used it to come to power.

Thanks for proving my point that there weren't enough checks on the power of the party. Stalin did not "come" to power, he hijacked the power. He manipulated party members, suppressed Lenin's testimonial (which stated that he did not want Stalin to succeed him), forced Trotsky into exile (and subsequently ordered his assassination), and purged the party of opposition.

quote:

And I don't believe you have shown how a worker's uprising is going to stop terrorism.

Because terrorism (like war) is caused by class division. Remove the class division and terrorism no longer has a cause.

quote:

Orwell was a commited Socialist, but even he realized that the system's good intentions were TOO good to be true.

Correction: Orwell was a committed socialist, and even he realized that Stalin's intentions were not truly socialist. Orwell's literature was not a prediction of what socialism would become, it was a warning of the need to keep the Stalins of the world at bay.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So answer my question. WHAT IF, when your glorious uprising takes place, it is hijacked and becomes Stalinist?

What have you done?

My bet is, you don't have a good answer for the above question. Because you argue through keeping away from details. When it get's down and dirty with details, your argument picks up holes.

Until you can handle details, no one is going to take your argument seriously except the kids over at Berkeley. I'm not being mean - just truthful.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So answer my question.
WHAT IF
, when your glorious uprising takes place, it is hijacked and becomes Stalinist?

That what if is a misnomer, because we are human, there is no WHAT IF about it.

Any uprising that would try to bring about a socialist utopia will be perverted into a stalinist type regime. It cannot be helped, it is part of human nature.

There are sheep and there are leaders, and those leaders would corrupt in order to gain power. This is the way things are, there is NO help for it.

In a few thousand years, when the human race has matured, then it might work, but until human beings are docile and willing to be EQUAL in ALL ways, then socialism will work.

It is a nice dream, it REALLY REALLY is, but absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to impliment.

SORRY!! But them's the facts.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So answer my question. WHAT IF, when your glorious uprising takes place, it is hijacked and becomes Stalinist?

That question implies that it would happen eventually, which I do not agree with. It depends on what type of party-state apparatus is established, if any at all. If the same structure that Lenin implemented in Russia was used in the future, then I would be worried. Lenin was a good strategist and revolutionary leader, but some of his philosophies about the 'vanguard party' were basically false in my opinion, especially its centralist nature and its lack of checks and balances on state power. By avoiding the mistakes that Lenin made, it would be much more difficult for Stalinists to hijack the state (if there is a state to hijack).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So your position is as ours, you have wishful thinking, but don't expect to see your ideas implemented?

That question assumes two things:

1. That Leninism is the dominant group of revolutionary socialists.

2. That Leninists are unwilling to revise their approach to the 'vanguard party' in the presence of facts.

Both of these assumptions are false.

Secondly, the only idea that needs to be implemented in order to make any future revolution any different from the last is that the revolutionaries must learn from past mistakes. I can find no reason why they wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, um, you keep saying what socialism ISNT, but how exactly would a world socialist community, or worker's revolution or WHATEVER ALTERNATIVE YOUR ADVOCATING, actually be done, and when done, how would it stop terrorism, and has it ever been done before which is the point of this thread. It doesn't seem feasible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought I already explained this.

No, you actually haven't. Your spouting off pro-socialism rhetoric, saying how past experiences haven't proven it wont work, but you aren't actually saying the process of a socialist revolution, it's implementation in the world (specifically the United States), who would do it, why people would do it, how it would stop terrorism, and how it would EVER work when historically either it 1. Hasn't been done before. or 2. Has been done before and failed (I dont know which, I really don't care, and it really doesn't matter which but I know it's one of the two) It'd be nice if you could answer my questions/points without going off on to some vague "socialism good" tangent, and saying how Mao and Stalin did it wrong, cause the point of this thread is how it would/could ever be done RIGHT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...