OT: Politial Book Review - Ann Coulter's Treason

[Merryprankster]

I just finished Ann Coulter's "Treason." For those of you who don't know, Ann Coulter is sort of the token woman of the right wing here in the United States. Unlike most tokens, however, she doesn't die in the first scene and has, instead, taken to writing books.

Where to begin... Well, if Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" was guilty of being poorly argued left wing teleology disguised as serious academic writing, Treason is an undisguised Neo-Conservative masturbation piece that might bring Rush Limbaugh to climax during a reading by, say, Nancy Reagan.

The premise of Treason is simple: The left wing in the United States is almost always guilty of coming down on the wrong side of National Security issues, and, by extension, are unpatriotic, treasonist gits. I say "almost always" because she has to make grudging exception for Truman, who dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. However, she doesn't like him either and insists that he weak on communism. But more about that later. She takes Disraeli's comment about Liberals being friends of every country save their own, expands it, wraps herself in it like a nice warm blanket of groupthink and smothers any hint of nuance or thought.

Rife with generalized ad hominem attacks - too numerous to list - on the political left wing of the United States, the Media, Franklin Roosevelt and anybody else that she happened not to like that day, half the book is devoted to trying to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy, who, she argues, was right about there being Communists in the U.S. government and so, anything else he did was just fine. In essence, the ends justify the means.

The book is so bad, so one sided, that there is nothing to argue about. Assertions are made without hint of evidence. Evidence she does use is skewed and manipulated to ensure that her point is made: If you are the only famous female neo-Con in the United States, you can get anything published.

No. Wait. That's not it.

Actually, she and Noam Chomsky share the nasty habit of ignoring or skewing, vice attempting to explain, evidence that does NOT support their theses. Where Noam used ITALY as his example to show how nationalism is considered a cute, anachronistic force by "modern, evolved" societies, Coulter attempted to back up the idea that Democrats (who are apparently synonymous with Stalinists--a classic equivalency fallacy) always make mistakes by casting the Cuban Missile Crisis as a huge strategic DEFEAT for the United States.

Let me explain the Cuban Missile Crisis in a nutshell. The U.S. found out the USSR was putting nuclear capable missiles in Cuba. Understandably, the U.S. was annoyed and viewed this as a serious threat to U.S. security. Perfectly reasonable. The Kennedy admin made public accusations and demanded their removal. The USSR played stupid and said they weren't there. Rhetorical escalation ensued, forces were deployed in different areas and DEFCON went up. There was some angriness between Sov and U.S. Naval forces.

It was probably the closest the world came to nuclear winter.

In the end, the U.S. presented smoking gun evidence that the USSR WAS putting nukes in Cuba. In a solution that allowed the Soviets to save face, Kennedy agreed to remove the Hercules (I think they were called) nukes from Turkey that were aimed at the Soviet Union, in exchange for the Cuban nukes to go away. The Sovs accepted the arrangement.

Sounds like Tit for Tat, right? Coulter argues that this was a failure because a "Republican administration never would have allowed things to get this far," (Huh? How is this supportable?!!!!) and that removing missiles from Turkey represented a serious weakening of U.S. security. (cont.)

[Merryprankster]

Conveniently, she fails to mention that the missles we removed in Turkey were rendered obsolete by our new submarine borne ballistic missiles. So, we gave up something we were planning on getting rid of anyway. U.S. strategy has ALWAYS focused on increased mobility and precision striking. The USSR strategy focused on increased warhead size and static silos - largely because they were WAY behind in propellant technology and their missiles had to be much bigger than ours. They were guilty of what's called "mirror imaging." To them, the Turkey based missiles looked like a big loss to the U.S. because they were stuck in a silo mindset and assumed we were using the same strategy they were.

We conceded nothing to gain quite a lot. We usually call these situations "diplomatic coups." Coulter sort of edits the appropriate information out so she can make her point.

If this review isn't as extensive as the one I offerred Noam's it's because there is less to argue with. There's no argument. Just unsupportable assertions about the left wing of the U.S. being pinko bad guy treasonous cowards and how the Cold War would have ended sooner if Republicans had been in power - which is nice, but untestable. She also spends a great deal of time arguing that Reagan was responsible for winning the Cold War. Never mind that the Soviet system was an inefficient, self-defeating model that was crushed under its own weight. No, Reagan single-handedly brought those dirty Sovs to their knees. She tries to argue that he spent them to death, but fails to credit YEARS of previous pressure and bipolar strategy had anything to do with it. Her lack of context is amazing, but at least, it's consistent.

I do offer this: Coulter is much funnier than Chomsky. I giggled quite a bit at her description of France's "Cheeses of mass destruction." But then again, the French are just funny.

Viva la Big Mac!

[old jong]

"OT: Politial Book Review - Ann Coulter's Treason"

"Politial" sounds a lot like "critial" Must be a coincidence!...;)

[Merryprankster]

You are NOT funny. :P

[Liokault]

LOL I though it was funny.

[Christopher M]

Pinko commie.

[David Jamieson]

What's next Merry? Frum and Perles latest warmongering rant and diatribe? lol.

On that one, you may blame canada as frum is from here. I wonder how his mother Barbara would have interviewed him if she was still alive. She was a well respected journalist and newscaster here in canada for a long time. I suspect, she may not have been happy with axis of evil boy lol.

Glad your reading from the left to the right, so to speak.

Careful not to get too much on yourself, or you will become a dirty pinko and ridge's boys will send you to cuba for a probing.

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
What's next Merry?

Oh! Oh! Do The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek!

[KC Elbows]

Thanks MP, good review and history lesson. You hit all the book's critial points vera well.

[Chang Style Novice]

I want MP to break down the fallacies and positions in "Sammy the Seal" by Syd Hoff.

[Nick Forrer]

'The U.S. found out the USSR was putting nuclear capable missiles in Cuba. Understandably, the U.S. was annoyed and viewed this as a serious threat to U.S. security'

I wonder how the soviets felt when they found out that there were as you put it:

'Hercules (I think they were called) nukes from Turkey that were aimed at the Soviet Union'.

Or perhaps WMDs are fine as long as it is only America and its allies that has them. Especially since then they would have carte blanche to terrorise any more or less defenceless central american country that dares to implement a social and economic system that benefits its people rather then the corrupt dictators, Mafia casino owners and American sugar companies that washington prefers.

[rogue]

Hi KKM

[Radhnoti]

Christopher M. -
Oh! Oh! Do The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek!


I'll second THAT vote. Best cliffs notes I ever read. :o

No, really man....those cliffs notes changed my life.

Actually...I've been afraid to read the whole text. I'd hate to find out that his expanded views were different than I thought.

[MonkeySlap Too]

MP, I hope someday we can have a beer and argue philosophy - I thinked I'd get a beating. Once again, a well-reasoned review. Although history does show that McCarthy was right - but his methods were un-American.

Nick: Grow up. The cold war created some strange bed-fellows, but as Americans become more politically aware, they become less tolerant of the abuses of some of the punks we propped up in Central America. Without the threat of the Soviet juggernaut coming to crush us just like it crushed thier own people, we can hopefully live up to our ideals.

How about those BBC guys quiting? Prety cool, eh?

For you Rhadnoti:

Cliff Notes of Cliff Notes:

Dracula: Guy goes around biting people in neck until someone sticks a stake in his heart.

Gone with The Wind: Liberated chick loses farm during civil war.

Bible: God creates man, everything man does p!sses off God.

The Stranger: Guy kills somebody and doesn't feel bad about it.

[Merryprankster]

wonder how the soviets felt when they found out that there were as you put it:

I imagine they were annoyed and thought it was a threat to their National Security. Hence, perhaps, the missiles in Cuba?

I'm failing to understand how stating that the U.S. viewed missiles in Cuba as a threat to national security translates to me taking the stance that only the U.S. is allowed to have WMD's. I don't see the connection. It's as though me commenting that there were slaves in the United States up until a certain point in our history makes me a racist...

OR, maybe, THERE ISN'T A CONNECTION! Novel, eh?

Are you related to that idiot, Laughing Cow? If so, just tell me now so I can put you on my ignore list. If you ARE LC, I refer you to my Bertrand Russell quotation.

MS2,

I doubt you would get *****ed at all. My knowledge of philosophy is VERY limited to be honest. Especially 20th century philosophy. To me, most of the 20th century philosophers are more concerned with parsing language than trying to improve the human condition. I have a personal requirement that philosophy be applicable to understanding the way we live in the world around us. Anything that fails to do that doesn't meet my standard for interest.

[David Jamieson]

There are very few nuclear powers in the world. Let's keep it at that it is the line of thinking, I personally am ok with that line of thinking.

Let's see now we have:

The US (of course)
Russia (of course)
China
Pakistan
India
Israel
Britain
France

I think that's all of em, did I miss any?

Anyway, if these countries can stop proliferation of Nukes globally and then get rid of their own stockpiles, I do believe we would be living in a better world gents.

cheers

[MonkeySlap Too]

MP - Too bad Wittgenstien isn't around for us to beat the crap out of...but I hear he did BJJ, so I guess we should all be afraid of his 'puzzles'.

I really like Bertrand Russell, but I think he's guilty of being more clever than well thought out...

[Chang Style Novice]

Guy de Bord and Roland Barthes would choke you out.

edit -

on further reflection, I believe that both of those froggies were suicides, so I'll amend that to they'd choke themselves out.

[rogue]

Ya know all the worlds problems could be solved if everyone just got together, talked and shared a big helping of FLAN!

FLAN, it's peace in a bowl.

[Chang Style Novice]

Actually, I just had some really great gingerbread made with fresh ginger so there were still tiny little fibers of ginger root in it. Sweet and spicy and moist...

Gingerbread would choke flan out.

[rogue]

No it wouldn't. Anyway...

FLAN, it's what Jesus ate.

[Chang Style Novice]

No way. Jesus ate kugel. Maybe St. Francis of Assisi ate flan...

[rogue]

FLAN, more German cannibals choose FLAN than any other dessert treat.

[Liokault]

Originally posted by rogue
FLAN, more German cannibals choose FLAN than any other dessert treat.


But Flan is best served as a savoury dish, and is preferred my ultra right-wing yanks who like to think they have some left-wing leanings.

[Nick Forrer]

'Are you related to that idiot, Laughing Cow? If so, just tell me now so I can put you on my ignore list. If you ARE LC, I refer you to my Bertrand Russell quotation.'

You never know, your Russell quote may apply more to your review of Chomsky then to me.

The reason why I wrote what I wrote is because there seemed to be a missing element of your ‘nutshell’ account of the missile crisis namely Cuba. There was also a tension between Moscow and Castro because Castro thought that once the missiles were removed there would be nothing to stop another invasion either by the US itself or by US trained and armed exiles/mercenaries (a similar justification is used by Israel in relation to neighbouring Arab states for its Nuclear program- In fact A guy called Vannunu is currently serving a life sentence for leaking information of Israel’s secret weapons program to the rest of the world). Consequently Castro wanted the missiles to stay where they were. As the record since then shows the US has confined itself to assassination attempts, industrial sabotage, an internationally condemned embargo (see the interestingly titled ‘Patriot Act’) and other overt and covert forms of warfare rather than risk another all out invasion. In my view America’s hostility to Cuba stems not from the cold war (which has been a handy pretext and ad hoc rationale for almost every American foreign policy excess since the 2nd WW.) But from the nationalisation of foreign assets (i.e. the sugar trade) and what is sometimes called the Domino effect i.e. the danger of Cuba acting as a successful model for other third world countries who might want to copy their example. It has nothing to do with democracy (as in the standard plebian juxtaposition of a battle between communism vs democracy) in fact the opposite, very often the leaders of the countries that the US has intervened in were either democratically elected (as Salvador Allende the Chilean leader was in 1973 who was then otherthrown in a CIA backed coup which brought the dictator Pinochet to power (note: following the declassification of government documents particularly the minutes of the ‘40 committee’ meetings this is now an uncontroversial historical fact (See Christopher Hitchens book on Kissinger for more detail and also the testimony of the former US ambassador to Chile Edward Korry)) or because they enjoy widespread popular support. Furthermore with the collapse of the soviet union US policy makers have had to look around for another pretext for military interventions other then that of the cold war- it was ‘rogue states’ during the Clinton era, it now seems to be ‘terrorism’ although of course that may change in the future (one of the more laughable justifications Reagan used for trying to covertly undermine the Sandanista movement in Nicaragua was that they might try and invade Texas). The most recent example though is probably that of Venezuela. The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has probably the largest democratic mandate of any democratic leader in the world (he got around 90 % of the vote). Venezuela is also and importantly the third largest oil exporter to the US after Saudi Arabia and Russia. Historically the (large) profits of the oil industry have been funnelled off to a mainly white rich elite while the rest of the country (mainly non white) lives in poverty. Chavez nationalised the oil industry and sacked the oil cartel executives on national TV chief amongst them Pedro Carmona. They then lead a coup (probably with the covert support of the US (ari fleischer practically admitted as much in a post coup press briefing)) which failed when around two million people came out on to the streets (despite numerous police killings) and stormed the palace. Chavez was restored to power and Carmona is currently a resident of…………………………………………………………………………………The US!
There is a very good documentary on this called ‘inside the coup’ made by two guys who were doing a profile on Chavez and then got caught up in the coup. Particularly interesting is the way the coup leaders (who own 7 of the countrys 8 channels) used TV to spread a mixture of distortions, half truths and down right lies to try and justify the coup. Worth watching.
On Russell………In addition to his work in philosophy and the foundations of mathematics (most of which was done before and better by Frege) Russell was like Chomsky a lifelong campaigner and peace activist. Indeed he was particularly vociferous in his opposition to the Vietnam war and was also the founder and chairman of CND the campaign for nulear disarmament. There is a very interesting debate between Lord Russell and Lord Gladwyn on the Cuban missile crisis. I will try and post this if I have time. My own view FWIW on the question of proliferation is that the US should lead by example and get rid of its own weapons first especially given that with around 10,000 war heads it has by far the most and furthermore it remains the only country to have ever used them. Moreover as long as countries fear the US (like Cuba) they have a reason to develop Nuclear capabilities namely to prevent the US from invading them

Regards and hope this leads to discussion rather then personal attacks of the grow up variety

Nick

[rogue]

More dictators south of the border prefer FLAN than any other dessert treat.

FLAN, it's what the Sandinistas ate!

[Merryprankster]

The reason why I wrote what I wrote is because there seemed to be a missing element of your ‘nutshell’ account of the missile crisis namely Cuba.

Then why didn't you say that, rather than go on about how the Soviets viewed the Nuclear Missiles? I would expect that such obivous threats to National Security would be viewed as such. Glossing over it seemed to be akin to saying "The man felt threatened by the mugger," without explaining in great detail why. Nobody needs a tremendous explanation of it.


You never know, your Russell quote may apply more to your review of Chomsky then to me.

Well, do YOU know? Did you read the review? What particular things did you find wrong with it? I never actually attacked much of his message. I attacked his delivery system. A payload is much less effective if the propulsion module has structural flaws. Chomsky raises some good issues but is fully guilty of several of the things I outlined. Ann Coulter actually made a few good points, but her dogmatism (which Chomsky was not so guilty of) carried the day. Is it so bad to be critical of that? Why should I not critically think about the things people postulate? Why should I accept their reasoning, EVEN if I agree with the conclusion.

Here's some food for though--where do I stand on "the issues?" Do you have any idea where I fall in the political spectrum? If it's not completely obvious in my posting--and I would argue it isn't since most people here consistently get it wrong, maybe it's because I'm as objective as I can be (after all, we all have our biases) when reviewing and discussing these matters.

Personally, I think I'm just looking at a guy who has a particular view of the way the world works and wants to pick a fight.


There was also a tension between Moscow and Castro because Castro thought that once the missiles were removed there would be nothing to stop another invasion either by the US itself or by US trained and armed exiles/mercenaries

This is nice but does not back up your point in any way. I agree that it was missing from my comments, but seemed extraneous. While Cuba may have been annoyed, they really didn't have much say. They didn't have much to offer the USSR except geography...and I doubt they'd take that barganing chip off the table considering all the OTHER aid they were getting from the USSR at the time. I think it's perfectly obvious WHY Castro wanted the missiles there. I think the larger question is DID THAT MATTER? I would argue it didn't. If you were doing analysis of the situation, I'd use this as a little contextual data to keep things interesting, vice a key argument. The "So what?" factor is a little low for me, unless you have something else to offer on the subject.


(a similar justification is used by Israel in relation to neighbouring Arab states for its Nuclear program- In fact A guy called Vannunu is currently serving a life sentence for leaking information of Israel’s secret weapons program to the rest of the world).

See, it's stuff like this that makes me think you've just got a poltical bone to pick. How is this relevant? I think from Cuba and Israel's perspective this makes a little sense from their respective POV's. I'd be just as concerned in their situations.


As the record since then shows the US has confined itself to assassination attempts, industrial sabotage, an internationally condemned embargo (see the interestingly titled ‘Patriot Act’) and other overt and covert forms of warfare rather than risk another all out invasion.

Again--what's your point? I don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate - that U.S. administrations are hostile to Cuba? I think that's an indisputable fact.


In my view America’s hostility to Cuba stems not from the cold war (which has been a handy pretext and ad hoc rationale for almost every American foreign policy excess since the 2nd WW.) But from the nationalisation of foreign assets (i.e. the sugar trade) and what is sometimes called the Domino effect i.e. the danger of Cuba acting as a successful model for other third world countries who might want to copy their example.

I would say that's less than half the story. History since the end of WWII is rife with examples of proxy conflict -some armed, some not- between the United States and the USSR. The Domino Effect was a clearly documented and articulated theory about how Communism might progress around the world since the Eisenhower administration. However, you are fantastically misunderstanding the Domino Effect theory. It had nothing to do with worrying that other 3rd world nations would look to other 3rd world communist dictatorships as successful models and everything to do with the primarily Leninist idea of violent revolution as the mechanism by which Communism spread.

Marx thought there were specific steps a society had to pass through to reach a Proletariat revolution. Lenin (and those who followed him) advocated infiltrating a nation, providing a "world according to us," viewpoint, and encouraging a violent insurrection once you had a core of followers. Further, unlike Marx, Leninism is violently hostile to the idea of a capitalist society. Marx didn't advocate a violent outreach program. He said that as societies were ready for a proletariat revolution, it would just happen. Lenin sought to actively overthrow non-Leninist regimes and replace them with Leninist ones.

Given Leninism's history of declaring capitalist society as the enemy, most U.S. foreign policy experts saw Communism as a real threat and the Domino Theory had real credence with them. I personally believe the Domino Theory had some real flaws and that the implications weren't as great as people would like to believe. But for a generation gripped with the threat of nuclear war, faced with a huge power openly hostile to them, I think I can understand its popularity. Before you comment that the USSR felt threatened, remember--Leninism is violently hostile to capitalism. It's part and parcel of their taught ideology. Socialism doesn't have to advocate violent spread of the revolution from place to place but that is one of Leninism's main hallmarks, and where he departed most from Marx. So, OF COURSE they felt threatened by capitalist societies--it's part of their doctrine and goes without saying.

Point of all this? Foreign Policy decision makers believed Leninism was a real threat, and a lot of them believed the Domino Theory - which made it even a bigger threat. A lot of our foreign policy was made with this in mind. We went to places where we didn't really have any heavy interests simply to stop the spread of Communism. I think that speaks pretty heavily to how powerful the Domino Theory was in the minds of those crafting U.S. policy.(cont)

[ShaolinTiger00]

MP, as an official Cuba-phile, I must say that you are completely and thoroughly, correct on this issue.

Well done compay!

[ShaolinTiger00]

and fwiw, I'd pay a gang of thugs to beat torture and rape Ann..

:)

[Mutant]

I recently read Al Franken's new book 'Lies & the Lying Lyers Who Tell Them' (very funny :D). He has at least 2 chapters about Ann and her latest book in which he and his team of Harvard researchers go through her endnotes and references in excrutiating detail and prove that she made up, distorted and fabricated so much of her material that her book is essentially a perverse work of fiction.
He has a very funny lesson on 'how to lie with endnotes', using Coulters' book as an example.
Of course Franken is liberal, so its granted that he's going to take issue with right wing texts. Whats interesting and enables him to pull it off is his very thorough and meticulously documented research methods.
He exposes Ann as the psychotic lying b!tch that she is.

[Merryprankster]

very often the leaders of the countries that the US has intervened in were either democratically elected (as Salvador Allende the Chilean leader was in 1973 who was then otherthrown in a CIA backed coup which brought the dictator Pinochet to power (note: following the declassification of government documents particularly the minutes of the ‘40 committee’ meetings this is now an uncontroversial historical fact (See Christopher Hitchens book on Kissinger for more detail and also the testimony of the former US ambassador to Chile Edward Korry)) or because they enjoy widespread popular support.

Ah! True! People seem to forget that the United States acts to preserve perceived U.S. interests (vice acting to do whatever the rest of the world would like them to do)--and their biggest interest at the time was stopping the spread of Communism. I don't think you can underestimate how powerful a force this was. MANY analysts at the time--and decision makers--fully believed that a right wing dictatorship was preferable to a socialist government of any sort.

Let me ask this--if the spread of communism WASN'T the consideration for doing this, what was? I mean, what possible interest was there in Chile beyond Domino Effect fears? Oh, wait. You answer that below. And you wonder why I think you have a political axe to grind....


Furthermore with the collapse of the soviet union US policy makers have had to look around for another pretext for military interventions other then that of the cold war- it was ‘rogue states’ during the Clinton era, it now seems to be ‘terrorism’

"pretext for military interventions...." Yup. We just like killing people as long as they aren't too white. I'm sorry, but there has to be a perceived compelling U.S. interest for us to deploy forces. It's a fact of democracy--you've got to sell the public on why you're doing it. It's ENTIRELY possible that the interest isn't so compelling after all, but do you think "the public" will stand that for long? Or, are you suggesting the alternative--which is that the public is stupid and incapable of seeing a snowjob? I might remind you that roughly half the U.S. is not very happy about this whole Iraq thing--the reasons for opposition vary, from being very very good to laughable. It's a very real issue in the next election--proving that the public is quite sensitive to available information about important issues. Or is Tony Blair not having any problems either?

Let's just cut to the chase--governments with a beaurocracy tend to fall in the rational actor model. They act according to their perceived interests. France, Russia and Germany didn't oppose the war out of altruism--they had real business interests in Iraq. The United States didn't prosecute the war to bring freedom to the Iraqi people or to protect the world from the threat of WMD. The Bush admin did it to protect U.S. interests, which may range from oil to personal revenge to demonstrating that you can't ignore UN declarations and U.S. treaties (please remember that Iraq lost a war and a peace was negotiated with the United States that included certain conditions) without getting your pee-pee smacked. But none of these actors did it without a very strong sense of "what's in it for me." The 'it' depends very strongly on how cynical you are, and how good your critical thinking skills have come along since tyke-hood.


The most recent example though is probably that of Venezuela. The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has probably the largest democratic mandate of any democratic leader in the world (he got around 90 % of the vote). Venezuela is also and importantly the third largest oil exporter to the US after Saudi Arabia and Russia.

90% of the vote in a nation fraught with election problems. That type of margin is unheard of....except when the election has been controlled. THAT's worth a looksee. It's entirely possible that he legitimately won 90% of the electorate, but improbable.



Historically the (large) profits of the oil industry have been funnelled off to a mainly white rich elite while the rest of the country (mainly non white) lives in poverty.

Yes, a tragic legacy of mercantilist, imperialist European powers raping and pillaging their colonies for natural resources. I think it's dreadful. I wish those empires had done something about it, like building infrastructure and educating the populace instead of leaving things in the dreadful mess they are.


Chavez nationalised the oil industry and sacked the oil cartel executives on national TV chief amongst them Pedro Carmona. They then lead a coup (probably with the covert support of the US (ari fleischer practically admitted as much in a post coup press briefing)) which failed when around two million people came out on to the streets (despite numerous police killings) and stormed the palace.

No, what Ari Fleischer said quite specifically is that the USG had conversations with military leaders and key economic leaders prior to the coup. He also said the United States representative said it would not back a coup. I don't call that practically admitting as much in a post coup press briefing. What I would say is that we know there were meetings, unfortunately, we don't know what actually took place in those meetings. The Organization of American States (OAS) did an investigation of the coup and conluded we'll never know what happenned in May of 2002. Do we have any other content to the contrary, beyond speculation?

Correlation is not causation, unfortunately (ie, sickness does not cause viruses). Perhaps if a meeting like this were unusual it would raise more questions, but, quite frankly, it isn't. Government to Government transactions are not the only reason that diplomatic missions are sent to a nation. So I have a normal type meeting framed with unusual circumstances. It might have been tacit U.S. coup support. It might not. Nobody knows because we really don't have enough evidence to draw a conclusion. You could cynically declare that U.S. hostility and oil interests are enough, but lets bring Nigeria into the picture here. This is a nation rife with poltical turmoil and probably in need of "humanitarian intervention." Several major U.S. companies have Nigerian interests, as well as several European Conglomerates. It wouldn't be hard to start peddling some sort of influence over there under the pretext of aid or some such, and it has the added benefit of bringing European powers on board. But we ain't lifting a finger.

Now we're left with just Bush's hostility towards Chavez. Hmmm. I suppose personal dislike might be enough but that seems odd somehow. I don't think it's heavy enough, from an analytical framework to argue we supported a coup. Is it POSSIBLE? Yup. Is it PROBABLE? I'm going to go with not.


Chavez was restored to power and Carmona is currently a resident of…………………………………………………………………………………The US!

This is a red herring if ever I saw one. Nation after nation gives people asylum. Carmona had connections in the U.S. It's hardly surprising he came here.


There is a very good documentary on this called ‘inside the coup’ made by two guys who were doing a profile on Chavez and then got caught up in the coup. Particularly interesting is the way the coup leaders (who own 7 of the countrys 8 channels) used TV to spread a mixture of distortions, half truths and down right lies to try and justify the coup. Worth watching.

Ummm... it was a coup. What do you expect? [cont]

[Merryprankster]

On Russell………In addition to his work in philosophy and the foundations of mathematics (most of which was done before and better by Frege) Russell was like Chomsky a lifelong campaigner and peace activist. Indeed he was particularly vociferous in his opposition to the Vietnam war and was also the founder and chairman of CND the campaign for nulear disarmament. There is a very interesting debate between Lord Russell and Lord Gladwyn on the Cuban missile crisis. I will try and post this if I have time.

I'm aware he was a peace activist. I'm also aware he was very bright. That doesn't always make him right, however. I can admire a person without being slavish. I admire Chomsky. I just find it shameful that a man used to academic rigor would resort to such poor argumentation. At least Coulter doesn't even pretend. I keep changing my mind about which is more shameful--posing as serious scholarship or unabashed, brazen pandering to a specific audience.


My own view FWIW on the question of proliferation is that the US should lead by example and get rid of its own weapons first especially given that with around 10,000 war heads it has by far the most and furthermore it remains the only country to have ever used them.

I disagree entirely. This is a phenomenally bad idea. While states that have entrenched beaurocracies act rationally according to their perceived interests, dictatorships or states most of the power resting in the hand of one or two people do NOT act rationally--they act according to the viewpoint of one fellow--which may or may not be rational. Consequently, nuclear deterrence will remain a lynchpin of U.S. security for years to come. Multi-lateral disarmament is the only way to go here.


Moreover as long as countries fear the US (like Cuba) they have a reason to develop Nuclear capabilities namely to prevent the US from invading them

Cuba's a dreadful example. Leninist ideology would dictate they fear us regardless of what we do. Further, I would argue that the U.S. has given no indications it plans to ever invade Cuba since the Bay of Pigs fiasco. I would also add that there are no compelling U.S. interests to invading Cuba. Random point of note: Cuba, FWIW, is hardly a successful model for other 3rd world nations to look up to. That's why Cubans keep trying to leave. There are people with PhD's there who are working as dive boat hands out of necessity. This is NOT a healthy economy.

A better example might be Iran, but still, countering U.S. power is a sideline. They are trying to develop a nuclear program to counter the perceived Israeli threat.

A still better example might be North Korea. However, I am not entirely certain that Kim's strategy is U.S. centric. I think it's an obvious reason and a great barganing chip, but I'm personally betting he is trying to develop nukes in an effort to get out from under China's shadow. There is VERY real tension there, and China really doesn't take DPRK very seriously. I think that rankles.

Yeah, I know they're all part of the "axis of evil," but these programs were going on well before then, so it's not just a reaction to that.

[D_Messenger]

Your country is bad and there is no way for you to hide it

[Gangsterfist]

Ann Coulter can be quoted off her website saying that America never had acts of terrorism except from muslim middle east radicals. Hmm she must have never heard of the Oklahoma City bombing, or Ted Kazinski (una bomber)? She fabricates a lot of her stuff. I saw her a few times on Bill Mahr's new show, Real Time with Bill Mahr on HBO. She is your typical brain washed over patriotic conservative. I was gonna read her book, but from everyone I talked to about it said it was dumb.

Plus whats up with Ann's adam's apple? Is she a dude?

[Merryprankster]

Ann Coulter can be quoted off her website saying that America never had acts of terrorism except from muslim middle east radicals. Hmm she must have never heard of the Oklahoma City bombing, or Ted Kazinski (una bomber)?

We never had organizational acts of terrorism before then. FWIW, it's very hard to analyze lone actors.

Anyway, there is a significant difference. So she's right in one way, but clearly, we've had terrorist acts before--just not like this, with such an organization behind it.

[rogue]

Shermans March to the Sea.

[Gangsterfist]

Just to play devil's advocate here, it has been a strong theory that Timothy McVeigh did not act alone. He was believed to be a patsy. Not to mention how many times had the world trade center been attempted to be blown up by explosives?

However I see your point, but how I interpreted it as that we NEVER had acts of terrorism commited upon us. Not to mention it singles out people of the arab nations which in return has negative effects on those of the same race/ethnicity that have nothing to do with the acts of terrorism. I feel bad for the american muslim.

Terrorism may be a bit new to us, but it happens all the time in other countries.

[Merryprankster]

Let's all be a little more rigorous about what terrorism is.

Terrorism is a non-state actor conducting or attempting to conduct violance against non-combatants for a political end.

Sherman's march doesn't qualify.

[rogue]

premeditated, politcally motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents usually intended to influence an audience. US DOS 1998.

Non-state actors can be handled and controlled by states. This is were terrorism definitions always get foggy. In many places religion is used in place of a state. MP is there an official definition that you are using?

[Merryprankster]

Rogue, nope, that's the one I was using. My point was that Sherman was a state actor-he was a general in an official fighting force of a sovereign nation.

There are, however, only a few state sponsors of terrorism, as designated by the State Department:

Iraq
North Korea
Libya
Iran
Cuba
Sudan
Syria

I believe the term "subnational" probably gets to the heart of the issue better than "non-state actor." Mea culpa for poor word choice. I was thinking about it more in terms of "not an official representative of a state, acting under state recognition."

[fragbot]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Oh! Oh! Do The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek!

I actually enjoyed that book. Not that I remember it particularly well, but I remember it being reasonably cogent and persuasive.

I particularly hated Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." I made the mistake of thinking it was about economics. Save your valuable time and read Bastiat's "That which is not seen" instead.

Before I forget, Virginia Postrel's *way* too long-winded for my taste.

As a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, I don't get Coulter's appeal at all. MP's right, she's just as irritating, hyperbolic and one-sided as Chomsky (whose followers consistently show themselves to be barely rational parrots*).

*in this way, they're similar to the taiji dweeb who quotes "the classics" or the bagua **** who's memorized the I Ching.

[fragbot]

For those interested in the Cuban missile crisis, I'd suggest Graham Allison's "Essence of Decision."

[D_Messenger]

You live on a very bad and mean country

[jun_erh]

Ann Coulter is a lawyer ya know? There's so much law and order type politics nowadays. People are way too good at making a case for something and lose sight of the issue. We hate lawyers for good reason. and she is not the only one. Amy Goodman at the demcracy now (.org) radio show does the same thing from the other side.

[Merryprankster]

I love lawyers. I think they're great for society. The prevalence of lawyers means there's lots of business for the courts. And that's good- it shows a healthy judicial system where people feel they have access.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I love lawyers. I think they're great for society. The prevalence of lawyers means there's lots of business for the courts. And that's good- it shows a healthy judicial system where people feel they have access.

Please tell me you are joking.

[Leimeng]

~ I have lived and worked in Venezuela as well as many other Latin American countries. Unlike most people, I actually do have a clue as to what happens in the rest of the world and I will not take the bait or swallow the hook that the extreme leftwing wishes to present about the world at large.
~ Having studied and dealt with Venezuela (and a large part of the rest of South America), I must say that I am both amused and saddened by those who fall so easily for leftwing propaganda as accurate information on the situation in Venezuela. There are several points to be made on Venezuela, however I will only touch on a few. The first is understanding the political, social, and economic dynamics of Latin American in general, and Venezuela in particular.
In Latin America, authoritarians are brought to power during times of national desperation that often comes from a rejection of the ruling political elite. An authoritarian obtains his legitimacy directly from the popular will to destroy what is widely perceived to be a failed political system. Cuba with Castro, Chile with Pinochet, Brasil with multiple military coups, Argentina and Peron, Peru and Fujimori, and Venezuela under Hugo Chavez Frias are all examples of this. All were brought to power due to a popular rejection of traditional politics and desperation for change. In each of these cases, society demanded rapid and profound political change that could only come from the power of an iron hand. Pinochet, Chavez, Fujimori, and Peron each invoked the will of the people to justify their decision to destroy checks and balances and to concentrate extreme powers in the hands of the executive. The belief that traditional politics had failed and politicians were incapable of resolving the country’s problems leads to the idea that only someone capable of rising above politics, endowed with great powers can bring stability to the country. (This also goes for multiple military leaders in Pakistan, Marcos, Sukarno, Suhuarto, Mugabe and many others.) There is a widespread belief in many third-world nations that traditional politics squanders wealth and prevents economic advancement of the people. They are “caudillos,” the primitive strongmen common to Latin American politics.
The absence of strong, independent democratic institutions of supervision and control, due to the populist nature of most latin governments, contributes to the problem, along with the lack of will of political leaders to fight corruption, since "looking the other way" has generally provided them with an effective means to stay in power. Chavez is no exception to this paradigm.
In Venezuela, Chavez identified a domestic enemy to justify his hard-handed tactics --the “oligarchy” -traditional political parties (AD and Copei), the national labour union that had close ties to the parties, and big business. The oligarchs needed to be rooted out and destroyed, but to do the work efficiently the institutions needed to be cleansed. Capitalizing on the overwhelming rejection of the old political elites, Chavez introduced the national plebiscite to Venezuela, an instrument that did not previously exist. He used the plebiscite as a weapon to demolish all checks and balances on presidential power. Through the referendum, Chavez dissolved congress, the Supreme Court and all other lower level courts.
However, he then packed these institutions with loyalists in order to maximize his power. Though Chavez was elected democratically, Venezuelans understood that they were voting for an authoritarian. Over time, the definition of oligarch, or enemy, has evolved to mean anyone that has sought to impose checks on his power or oppose his rule. In Venezuelan the Chávez government has been in the business of enthusiastically promoting conflict and generating violence.
In most of the places I have ever visited, this holds true but is only part of the situation. A lot of it has to do with the people themselves and their expectations and actions. Patronage and the desire to better the lot of an individual’s own family creates many problems as well. For example, in many places, with nationalized industries especially, when an individual gets a job where they make any sort of decisions for hiring other people, those jobs will go to the individuals family regardless of that persons qualifications or even if their is a job to do. This creates an inefficiency that is only exasperated by non-competitiveness, ill-defined budgets, poor accounting practices, and a host of other factors. An effective democracy controls corruption by minimizing excessive bureaucratic discretionality. Additionally most of the third-world nations are dependent on one or two natural resources for the majority of their national economy. Coffee, sugar, oil, flowers, lumber, gems and precious metals for example. Venezuela has a source of abundant national income, petroleum, which is easily produced and essentially non-earned through hard work or national savings. (Unlike the case of incomes in most industrialized countries.) This easy income has promoted over dependence on the welfare state
This provides a basic backdrop of generalized cultural considerations for this discussion.
Part of understanding Venezuela, requires appreciation that unchecked access to billions of dollars derived from the state controlled oil industry has granted Mr. Chávez the "right" to ignore the demands of the majority that was once his. Other leaders have not enjoyed this luxury and are forced to either negotiate or leave office when confronted with a significant and sustained challenge from a dejected population or parliament. Even though corrupt, there was some transparency in the system. Hugo Chavez however, is obsessed with an offensive campaign to discredit anyone who would dare to speak of his unduly called democratic government.
The generation of employment has been non-existent, to the point that the unemployment rate is today the highest ever in that country. The solution to the problem of abandoned street children is nowhere in sight. Land reform is riddled with fraud and illegal invasions. Improving the social condition of the poor has not gone beyond empty rhetoric while the middle class has been systematically disappearing.
The currency is rapidly getting to be worthless, national debt has reached dramatic proportions, the Central Bank has been terrorized by Chávez, food shortages are the rule, 60% of the companies existing five years ago have folded, international reserves pile up at the expense of a normal economic activity, inflation is the highest in Latin America, petroleum production is 800,000 barrels per day lower than two years ago, the national budget for 2004 shows a deficit of about USD $10 billion that will have to be covered with new indebtedness. How is this for economic performance?
A look at opinion polls shows quite clearly that his mandate to rule with an iron hand has ended. The opposition has abandoned a strategy of mobilization, and has embraced Chavez’s constitution and his recall referendum. The ongoing political crisis represents a radical reversal of fortune for Hugo Chávez. His popularity has dwindled from 80 to 35 percent according to most polls. If Chávez still commands support, it is because the opposition is divided and cannot fill a real gap with a virtual void.
Unemployment, poverty, crime rate, devaluation of the currency, artificial exchange controls, regressive taxation, administrative waste, corruption, social resentment and exclusion, loss of social capital, dramatic drop in the ranking of the Human Development Index of the UN, competitiveness, all of these indices are much more unfavorable today than five years ago.
I also encourage that you visit www.globalcorruptionreport.org and see the tremendous increase in official corruption in Venezuela since Chavez came to power. The results of the 2003 Corruption Index of "Transparency International" ranks Venezuela as number 100 in a group of 133 countries, number 1 being the least corrupt. Last year it was 81. That is a 19-point drop in one year! This is the level of Haiti! It has been in the 60’s in the past. I doubt this radical change in position is due to dramatic improvements in multiples of other countries. The irony of it is that Chavez ran on a platform or anti-corruption!

**********TO BE CONTINUED***********

Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

Flatulo Ergo Sum –

Finding one of her students making faces at others on the playground, Ms. Smith stopped to gently reprove the child.
Smiling sweetly, the Sunday School teacher said " Bobby, when I was a child I was told if that if I made ugly faces, my face would freeze and stay like that".
Bobby looked up and replied, "Well, Ms. Smith, you can't say you weren't warned."

[Leimeng]

**********Continued from Previous Post**********

Now for some ideas on the coup as reported in suggested piece of propaganda (the film 'documentary' on the coup): There was a national strike by various of unions in Venezuela in December. As the strike started, Chavez blocked private radio and television stations from broadcasting any information about the strike. (So much for a free press, but then again, the left wing has always opposed a free press.) The government of Chavez ordered the military to be put on alert to be (potentially) used against the strikers. The head of the National Guard asks for the military to not be used against the strikers. (How come the left wing seems to think it is ok to use the military against opposition but not in national defense?) Chavez’ ‘Bolivarian’ circles, who have been provided training and weapons by the regime decided to assassinate opposition marchers from the roof of the presidential headquarters with sharp shooters. This situation is unacceptable to the military and the opposition so they staged a coup. The opposition contacted the US Embassy and the US Mil-group in Caracas and asked for support in the ouster of the President Chavez. They were denied and told to hold an election instead.
In fact, just a few weeks ago on November 28, 2003 President Chavez is quoted as saying: “We do not have any evidence, at this moment, … that any country in the world is interfering in Venezuelan internal affairs...” Wow!
So much for the propaganda of the leftwing. So much for the supposed US support of a coup against Chavez. When will the leftwing ever get it right?
A true democracy solves the problems of the people but the Chavez regime has spent almost all of its time in power in clinging to power, not in the tasks of government.
The rhetoric of Chavez and his 5th column were to turn the slums into middle class neighborhoods. But the reverse has happened. The Venezuela of only six years ago had many problems but extreme misery was not one of them. People did not walk around half-naked in the streets without being challenged. Today, almost anything goes in the way of social neglect. Middle class residential neighborhoods are now a huge slum areas, taken over by beggars, drug addicts, abandoned children and, worse, by organized criminal gangs that prey on the citizenry. Filth piles high along the sidewalks, the smells rival those of a Zoo and the general atmosphere of the area is one of tragic social breakdown. Walking through formerly safe areas is both difficult and dangerous.
Before Chavez took power the poverty rate in Venezuela was around 37%. According to recent reports the poverty rate in Venezuela in the middle of 2003 was about 67%. That is pretty good for a leftist who cares sooo much about his people.
I could go on but the point should be pretty clear. It is foolish to accept the claims from just one source of information. Especially when the sources has a clear bias towards the moronic left.
Continue to discuss amongst yourselves.

Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

Flatulo Ergo Sum --

[rogue]

Great post and sadly applies to most of the places large sections of my family comes from.

[Nick Forrer]

MP
First of all let me say thank you for taking the time to write a detailed and comprehensive reply to what i wrote. With that in mind let me try and answer some of your points and further clarify some of my own:

'Then why didn't you say that, rather than go on about how the Soviets viewed the Nuclear Missiles?'

I didn’t go on about it. I just highlighted it as something conspicuously absent from your account. Theres no need to be so defensive.

'Ann Coulter actually made a few good points, but her dogmatism (which Chomsky was not so guilty of) carried the day. Is it so bad to be critical of that?'

No. Not at all.

'Why should I not critically think about the things people postulate?.'

You should and I do. Thats why I responded to your post in the first place. But you’ve asked me what the point i'm trying to make is. Let me ask you what your point is in posting these ‘reviews’ on a kung fu forum? Is it to show a bunch of fourteen year old keyboard warriors your relaxed mastery of international politics? Or perhaps you fancy yourself as something of a iconoclastic truth seeker in the best Socratic tradition, effortlessly deconstructing the arguments of the left and right with equal ease. Personally I prefer to wear my political colours on my sleeve rather then sit on the fence with a smug expression on my face. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh but many people have died and continue to die because of what we’re talking about and I don’t like it when people adopt a cavalier attitude to these things or accuse others when they get called up on it of having a ‘bone to pick.’ Your right- I do have a bone to pick, but i'll be honest about it rather then trying to draw someone in to a guessing game about where I sit on the political spectrum. I’m digusted and incensed with what the British and American governments are doing at the moment (see? nothing to hide) and I reserve the right to challenge anyone who trys to defend it particularly with the kind of bogus arguments that pay lip service to abstract, ill defined notions like ‘freedom’ and ‘security’ that are peddled on a daily basis in the mainstream media.

'There was also a tension between Moscow and Castro because Castro thought that once the missiles were removed there would be nothing to stop another invasion either by the US itself or by US trained and armed exiles/mercenaries'

'I agree that this was missing from my comments.'

That’s why I bought it up.

'I think it's perfectly obvious WHY Castro wanted the missiles there. I think the larger question is DID THAT MATTER? I would argue it didn't.'

Maybe not to the US or USSR decision makers at the time. But when it comes to understanding the missile crisis from a historical perspective i.e. the time and place we are at now and in relation to current US policy towards Cuba I think it matters. Depends of course on what your priorities are and what your trying to understand.

'If you were doing analysis of the situation, I'd use this as a little contextual data to keep things interesting.'

You could use it to keep things accurate too.

'While Cuba may have been annoyed, they really didn't have much say. They didn't have much to offer the USSR except geography...and I doubt they'd take that barganing chip off the table considering all the OTHER aid they were getting from the USSR at the time.'

Its worth remembering that the ‘geography’ bargaining chip which you seem so intent on down playing almost ended in the obliteration of us all

'I think it's perfectly obvious WHY Castro wanted the missiles there.'

Sometimes its pays to point the obvious out even if it means russell-ing (sic) a few feathers along the way. An incomplete account can be just as misleading as an inaccurate one.

'a similar justification is used by Israel in relation to neighbouring Arab states for its Nuclear program- In fact A guy called Vannunu is currently serving a life sentence for leaking information of Israel’s secret weapons program to the rest of the world'.

'How is this relevant? I think from Cuba and Israel's perspective this makes a little sense from their respective POV's. I'd be just as concerned in their situations.'

Its relevant because both states in the past have substantially relied on the patronage of superpowers far away for military protection from hostile neighbours, as well as economic support. Both also portrayed themselves as being key strategic assets to their patrons in order to maintain continued support. Of course in Israel’s case this holds true to this day. Since you like pre 20th century philosophy heres a quote from plato (you tell me whether its relevant or not) ‘good judgement consists in the ability to see the differences in similar things and the similarities in different things.’

'As the record since then shows the US has confined itself to assassination attempts, industrial sabotage, an internationally condemned embargo (see the interestingly titled ‘Patriot Act’) and other overt and covert forms of warfare rather than risk another all out invasion.'

'Again--what's your point? I don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate - that U.S. administrations are hostile to Cuba? I think that's an indisputable fact.'

But one not fully understood by many people which is why I then wrote:

'In my view America’s hostility to Cuba stems not from the cold war (which has been a handy pretext and ad hoc rationale for almost every American foreign policy excess since the 2nd WW.) but from the nationalisation of foreign assets (i.e. the sugar trade) and what is sometimes called the Domino effect i.e. the danger of Cuba acting as a successful model for other third world countries who might want to copy their example. '

'I would say that's less than half the story. History since the end of WWII is rife with examples of proxy conflict -some armed, some not- between the United States and the USSR.'

To reiterate, I think the standard analysis of two superpowers using the developing world as pawns in a kind of global chess game is woefully inadequate and was exaggerated by successive post war US administrations to justify all kinds of foreign interventions to a scared and indoctrinated population, often with horrendous consequences. Declassified documents (particularly relating to Cuba and Vietnam but also elsewhere) show again that the threat was not from the USSR but from the massive success (comparatively speaking of course) of the cuban social experiment and the danger that other developing nations might follow in their wake (to this day Cuba has probably the best health service of any developing country in the region despite 40 plus years of US policy of the kind I outlined above-compare it to Haiti, another victim of the free market capitalist ideology so often espoused by the US but never actually practiced within its own borders, and an economic basket case by any reliable index).

'The Domino Effect was a clearly documented and articulated theory about how Communism might progress around the world since the Eisenhower administration. However, you are fantastically misunderstanding the Domino Effect theory. '

It wont surprise you to hear that I feel that the fantastic misunderstanding lies on your part

'It had nothing to do with worrying that other 3rd world nations would look to other 3rd world communist dictatorships as successful models.'

They needn’t be dictatorships. I gave you a distinct example (CHILE) of a US backed coups against a democratically elected SOCIALIST leader who came to power by the ballot box- not in a wave of bolshevik terror as you seem to think.

Which is just one reason why I think that this statement

'and everything to do with the primarily Leninist idea of violent revolution as the mechanism by which Communism spread. '

Is hopelessly wide of the mark

(cont.)

[D_Messenger]

Your country is so bad and evil that all I can say about is that it is very very very mean in a horrific way

[MonkeySlap Too]

Nick,
Ironically, I have a bone to pick as well. You are concerned about people dying - look at the track record of the leftist governments...there is nop comparison. Ironically, you would not even have the freedom to speak up against them without being put up against a wall.

For those of us who have seen first hand the devastation wrought by the left in different countrues, and whose families have been ground into nubs under their iron heel, accepting such drivel is not so easy. There is too much to disprove it. Like many demagouges, Chomsky starts with partial truths and extrapolates from there.

Try digging a little deeper. I'd go on more - but I'm busy at work...if this thread is still up next week I'll try to substantiate these comments, as you seem thoughtful and deserve that.

In defense of MP - you do not have to be a fence sitter to make his arguments - he is merely deconstructing the arguments - not taking sides like you and I. Nor is he seeking to convince others of an ideology. He probably hasn't felt the wrath of the b@stards you seem to admire so much.

[fragbot]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
Or perhaps WMDs are fine as long as it is only America and its allies that has them. Especially since then they would have carte blanche to terrorise any more or less defenceless central american country that dares to implement a social and economic system that benefits its people rather then the corrupt dictators, Mafia casino owners and American sugar companies that washington prefers.

When the Cubans are allowed to see a ballot with more than one candidate on it.

Terrorise Cuba? A show of hands, other than a few old men in charge, is there anyone who thinks Jose Sixpack is more afraid of the US than their own government?

Christ, it's like I've stepped back in time to a 1986 campus discussion.

I wonder if Chomsky still admires the Khmer Rouge.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MutantWarrior
I recently read Al Franken's new book 'Lies & the Lying Lyers Who Tell Them'. He has at least 2 chapters about Ann and her latest book

Franken should have remembered a certain maxim about people in glass houses (http://www.frankenlies.com/).

...

I was offering up Hayek's book in ironic juxtaposition to the caliber of the previous offerings. Though, of course everyone should still go read it!

... But I was completely serious about calling MP a commie. He's turned his back on the Right, so now he is apostate. Capitalist Solidarity Forever!!!

[MonkeySlap Too]

Ah, the Khmer Rouge - those champions of the working class - if they left any alive.

The lefty's supported Stalin too, and said the gulags were lies as well....

Ah, that Chomsky, what a humanitarian.

[Mutant]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Franken should have remembered a certain maxim about people in glass houses (http://www.frankenlies.com/)

... But I was completely serious about calling MP a commie. He's turned his back on the Right, so now he is apostate. Capitalist Solidarity Forever!!!

aahhh, now youre on the offensive and labeling those with differing opinions commies. great tactic; logic such as this certainly gains the respect and admiration <insert sarcasm> of everyone outside your narrow political spectrum. i doubt that you truely believe that, yet you mindlessly parrot the far-right party line. one can be a capitalist (or have other ideals) without being closed minded and tyrannical.

recall that one of the primary principles that this country was founded on was fair consideration of disenting opinions, and its one of the essential contraptions with enables our great political system to function properly.

i will check out the link provided and take the info into consideration with a fair eye. recall that this is one of the abilities that allows ones brain to function properly.

as far as the glass houses comment goes, i never claimed that franken was a saint and always correct, the guys a freakin comedian. i was commenting specifically on his analysis of coulter's god-aweful book, for which he provides (as opposed to her) meticulous research and resources. and while your response is basically 'well he has lied too, see...', that does not negate that fact that her book, one of the most wide-spread pieces of right-wing propaganda currently in circulation, is complete dogsh!t as far as truth, accuracy and academic research go.

when i read a political book (& i don't strictly diet on liberal writings), i don't take every word as gospel and i keep and open mind. franken's book was pretty good and i'd recommend it. one thing he said in his book that was particularly funny was that "conservatives love their country unquestioningly like an 8 year old loves her mommy, believeing that anyone who could disagree with her is bad and that she couldnt possibly ever do anything wrong." thats from memory so may not be exact quote.

bush's romp in the henhouse is almost up, so enjoy it while you still can. ;)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MutantWarrior
aahhh, now youre on the offensive and labeling those with differing opinions commies.

No, I'm the one with an overly dry wit not evident to people who are quick to stereotype.


i was commenting specifically on his analysis of coulter's god-aweful book for which he provides meticulous research and resources. and while your response is basically 'well he has lied too, see...'

No, my response is to cite someone who's gone through and checked up on his 'meticulous research and resources' and found them wanting. Perhaps you should have read it before commenting?


bush's romp in the henhouse is almost up, so enjoy it while you still can.

Four years and some is 'almost'?

[fragbot]

"half the book is devoted to trying to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy, who, she argues, was right about there being Communists in the U.S. government and so, anything else he did was just fine. In essence, the ends justify the means."

He's still widely reviled today, but (from what I can tell) he appears to have been reasonably correct in his premise. Though just showing up in the Venona tapes isn't necessarily good enough. . .

If he was reasonably correct, the argument then becomes whether or not his tactics were too odious for the issue at hand. Dunno. While I guess I have sympathy for someone falsely accused (sheesh, it was, what, a coupla hundred people tops), it's difficult to give a cr*p about someone getting blacklisted who *was* a member of the ACP.

With racism a new Communism, who'd be upset if Tom Metzger or Matthew Hale were publically reviled and couldn't get a job?

It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored.

[Gangsterfist]

You guys should read, The People's Guide to American History, by Howard Zin.

In the book you will read how the U.S.A. at one point almost became a socialist nation. Read about the miners and what they went through, and the poor farmers of the time, and how they wanted to push more towards a socialist society.

Its an interesting read none the less.

[Mutant]

yeah your 'overly dry wit' is a real gem.
i got that, but it was still kind of irritating.

i did check out that website before responding, but i didnt spend the time nessesary to see if its bullsh!t or not. i'm not claiming that one is accurate and the other is all wrong. just that coulter is a complete nutt-case. i'll look at it more after work. well, did you finish reading franken's book before responding?

and relax, i was just having some fun with you.

[Mutant]

d_messenger; we are not 'bad and evil.... 'the u.s. of a. has done and will do a lot of very good things. yes there are times when we f#ck up but we are still a great country. claiming that we are 'evil' is the same kind of one-dimesional thinking that pres. bush gets us into trouble with, so youre no better than him.

[fragbot]

Originally posted by Gangsterfist You guys should read, The People's Guide to American History, by Howard Zin.


BTW: it's Zinn. Yeah, because everyone knows it's wise to read activist historians. I couldn't find the review, but somewhere in the 378 reviews someone summed up the crux of the issue (para. since I don't have the original), "if Zinn chronicled the Lewis and Clark expedition, he'd write about the boots that made the trip. While crucial for the success of the trip, they aren't interesting in their own right."

Beyond a few fogies at the Socialist Women's Center and a folk singer or two, detailing Joe Hill's criminal escapade isn't compelling for a broader audience.

I'd suggest Churchill's "History of the English speaking people's" instead. Hell, for timely matter, I'd suggest his "The River War: An account of the Reconquest of the Soudan."

[Nick Forrer]

Response to MP (cont.)

'Marx thought there were specific steps a society had to pass through to reach a Proletariat revolution. Lenin (and those who followed him) advocated infiltrating a nation, providing a "world according to us," viewpoint, and encouraging a violent insurrection once you had a core of followers. Further, unlike Marx, Leninism is violently hostile to the idea of a capitalist society. Marx didn't advocate a violent outreach program. He said that as societies were ready for a proletariat revolution, it would just happen. Lenin sought to actively overthrow non-Leninist regimes and replace them with Leninist ones.

Given Leninism's history of declaring capitalist society as the enemy, most U.S. foreign policy experts saw Communism as a real threat and the Domino Theory had real credence with them. I personally believe the Domino Theory had some real flaws and that the implications weren't as great as people would like to believe. But for a generation gripped with the threat of nuclear war, faced with a huge power openly hostile to them, I think I can understand its popularity. Before you comment that the USSR felt threatened, remember--Leninism is violently hostile to capitalism. It's part and parcel of their taught ideology. Socialism doesn't have to advocate violent spread of the revolution from place to place but that is one of Leninism's main hallmarks, and where he departed most from Marx. So, OF COURSE they felt threatened by capitalist societies--it's part of their doctrine and goes without saying.

Point of all this? Foreign Policy decision makers believed Leninism was a real threat, and a lot of them believed the Domino Theory - which made it even a bigger threat. '

There is a train of successive questions here.
1)Is this account of Leninism accurate? (a factual question that is relatively unimportant for our present purposes therefore i'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this point and assume that it is)
2)If so was fear of this doctrine waht really drove subsequent US policy? (an important factual question)
3)If so does this justify subsequent US actions? (an important moral question).

If we answer yes to question 2 then we are forced to confront another deeper question (which you dont seem to do unless i missed it somewhere) namely WHY exactly they believed it to be such a threat. Is it because socialist revolution has to be violent – no you yourself admit that it doesn’t (Unless of course you think any socialist revolution that isn’t violent isn’t Leninist by definition and hence doesn’t need to be factored into your account (but then if you say that aren’t you guilty of the kind of self fulfilling tautological argument you accuse chomsky of?)). What about the fact that in many cases the violence only started after the socialists had come to power and the US then began to back (i.e. fund, train and arm) terrorist guerrillas with the full knowledge and intention that they would…. wait for it….. use violent revolution to overthrow them, as they did with the contras against Ortega and the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. Seems a strange rationale- covertly organising a violent proxy attack on a peaceful reformist government with a legitimate democratic mandate from its people because you think they’re infatuated with the idea of violent revolution. Or is it the famous US double standard at work again? Violent revolutions are fine as long as the guys responsible are our guys?

Or is it really because were the revolution to succeed as it partially did in Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua and elsewhere then the real threat would be to the privileged elites (read corporations and the ‘dual constituency of investors and lenders’ who comprise them and who governments are expected to pander to on every important issue (which incidentally is why there is virtually no difference between the mainstream political parties except on business neutral issues like abortion, gun control and the death penalty)) who feared their foreign assets might be under threat both there and elsewhere. Is this why for example when they found out their assets in Chile were under the threat of nationalisation Pepsi (yes Pepsi) put a call through to their former lawyer Nixon who then put his lackey kissinger on the case? To repeat declassified documents conclusively establish this happened.

'A lot of our foreign policy was made with this in mind. We went to places where we didn't really have any heavy interests simply to stop the spread of Communism. I think that speaks pretty heavily to how powerful the Domino Theory was in the minds of those crafting U.S. policy.'

The heavy interest was (at the risk of repeating myself) to stop the spread of independent nationalism i.e. the fear that as one government source put it so eloquently, third world governments might ‘adopt the preferential option for the poor’. This is the real heresy that was verboten by successive US administrations. In other words: Its fine to torture, brutalise, murder and repress your own people whilst you and your cronies have your snouts in your countries trough (just like Marcos did in the Philippines, Ceaucescu did in Romania, Suharto did in Indonesia and Duvalier did in Haiti), as long as western countries can continue with impunity to plunder your natural resources and exploit a labour market undistorted by such basic things as trade unions, minimum wages, maximum working hours, health and safety regulations, redundancy pay, pensions, healthcare, insurance, job security- in short all the elementary Labour rights that (nowadays) we take for granted in the developed world, thereby ensuring an uninterrupted flow of profits back to the west and the various companies that reside their but whose assets lie abroad– mining companies, diamond companies, arms companies, oil companies etc.

[anton]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
Ah, the Khmer Rouge - those champions of the working class - if they left any alive.

The lefty's supported Stalin too, and said the gulags were lies as well....

Ah, that Chomsky, what a humanitarian.


Does CHomsky explicitly state that he supports these and other pseudo-left dictatorships, or did you just infer that from the fact that he has leftist views?

[Merryprankster]

In defense of MP - you do not have to be a fence sitter to make his arguments - he is merely deconstructing the arguments - not taking sides like you and I.

MS2 is correct.

This is precisely the point I had bringing up my political affiliation. If you can't tell where I stand re: Ann Coulter's assertions, or Noam Chomsky's, then that's a GOOD thing. I'm trying, as much as pracitcable, not to impose my biases during this process.

I am not trying to "show off." An interesting implied Ad Hominem. Let's not do that.

I remarked that you seemed to have a political axe to grind because it seemed out of place given the purpose of the review--which was not to demonstrate the morality or lack thereof of anybody's actions. Merely the strength of a set of arguments.

Several members of this board show more than a passing interest in the subjects of politics, philosophy and morality. Call it a curse of the human condition if you must, but this board is not just conversations about CMA. It is a community of people who have diverse interests. They share them on this board.

My critique of the book was designed as a critique of the book. Not a vehicle to make assertions about the morality of U.S. actions. In fact, my comments in response to you aren't designed to support anything moral or not. It's my effort at providing evidence demonstrating:

1. What Leninism advocated.
2. The idea of Domino Theory.
3. How these ideas influenced U.S. policy.

It is not intended as a moral defense of any actions anywhere. It's merely a statement of evidence accompanied by an analysis - which you may or may not agree with. I am not arguing about it being good or bad. Just arguing goals and methodology. This may not be especially clear at the moment, but further posts should clarify it.

If you have a problem with the morality, that's certainly a large--but different issue. Not inseperable mind you, but different.

I'll respond to most of them later. Been very busy today. This may take me a couple of days, but it is coming in good faith. I'd prefer, however, not to be told I'm just trying to show off. I'm discussing things in much the same way people discuss sports.

Whereas you have admitted you have a political axe to grind :D

[fragbot]

Originally posted by anton
Does CHomsky explicitly state that he supports these and other pseudo-left dictatorships, or did you just infer that from the fact that he has leftist views?

That's a clever retort. As the article below points out, he's smart enough never to state anything. It's all a matter of allusion.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

Having had this debate before, I'd say this is a relatively even-handed writeup on the topic.

Brad Delong also has some good links on the topic as well:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/chomsky.html

Stephen Morris' linked review is particularly worth reading.

[fragbot]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

I remarked that you seemed to have a political axe to grind because it seemed out of place given the purpose of the review--which was not to demonstrate the morality or lack thereof of anybody's actions. Merely the strength of a set of arguments.


I'd say you've stumbled onto the most fascinating part of this thread. You wrote a review of Ann Coulter's book and unwisely made an unflattering, passing reference to the master propagandist (MP). This woke the "Manufacturing Dissenters" parrot who began to squak.

There are several things you don't mention if you want to have a reasonable discussion:

1) $cientology
2) Ayn Rand
3) Noam Chomsky
4) Council on Foreign Relations/Tri-lateral commission/Rothchilds/Rockefellers/Bilderbergers

BTW: in the article I posted earlier, my favorite line bar none: "Chomsky's defenders often complain he's been quoted out of context." Wry wit that fella.

[Nick Forrer]

'I am not trying to "show off." An interesting implied Ad Hominem. Let's not do that.'

Fine. But then to quote your esteemed philosopher king George Bush 'dont try and take a spek out of someone elses eye when you have a log in your own'. After all if was you that originally wrote to me

'Are you related to that idiot, Laughing Cow? If so, just tell me now so I can put you on my ignore list. If you ARE LC, I refer you to my Bertrand Russell quotation.'

Also, if you remember your 'review' contained a 'nutshell' account of the cuban missile crisis an aspect of which i feel you ommitted or at least didn't place proper emphasis upon so I called you up on it (in exactly the way you are trying to call Chomsky up but with a more open statement of my own views on the matter- if that constitutes having an axe to grind...so be it). And when I did it was me that was subjected to the ad hominem attack quoted above as well as a number of others (though not to your credit from you).

Finally, for someone who insists on styling themself as a lone island of objectivity in an otherwise raging sea of partisan bias and ideological dogma perhaps you can tell me who the author of this little gem is:

‘To the Euros who are America haters--Eat a fat one. Pretty easy to block out your past actions in the world and blame it all on the U.S.A. ain't it? Somehow, I missed the part where the U.S.A. not being able to fix all the problems your greedy little empires caused made us responsible for creating them in the first place. You started it, you clean it up. Oh.... wait.... you can't. You lack the resources, drive, and force projection capability to do it. Sigh... guess we'll just have to do what we've always done: Roll up our sleeves, and clean up after ya and take the abuse. It's like being an orderly in a clinic of crochety, geriatric, incontinent has-beens.’

Or were you just trying 'to pick a fight?'

Anyway lets not get lost in a pointless fog of claim and counter claim about who said what to who when, let the discussion continue (hopefully unimpeded by some of the anonymous trolls trying to snipe from the sidelines, whose sole contribution seems to be to mindlessley repeat inaccurate slanders which they later have to retract..........)

[anton]

Originally posted by fragbot


That's a clever retort. As the article below points out, he's smart enough never to state anything. It's all a matter of allusion.


Thank you for calling me clever, but I did not mean what I said as a retort. I didn't read the articles you posted, it was enough for me to know that you're not one of those people who thinks anyone with left-wing leanings is a Stalinist. I don't really have a stance in this debate - I haven't read either of the books discussed (I try to keep away from popular political literature). Personally I hope my political views are difficult to categorise as either left or right.

[Merryprankster]

Nick,

I don't pretend to be the lone voice of dispassionate objectivity on this board. I DID aspire to be objective in this review. See below for thoughts on Cuba and geopolitics. I didn't include it because I don't find it relevant to the perspective of the analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Put bluntly, what Castro thought didn't matter one whit to the outcome.



'Are you related to that idiot, Laughing Cow? If so, just tell me now so I can put you on my ignore list. If you ARE LC, I refer you to my Bertrand Russell quotation.'

Related was harsh, and I'll apologize up front for it. I thought you were LC under (yet) another name. You probably don't know my history with him. He's got a significant bone to pick with the U.S. and insists on bringing it up at every available opportunity, much to the detriment of oh...anything. I just noticed you do WC however, so unless you are him just trolling along, you're probably not him. Quite frankly, I don't have the patience for him and if you had turned out to be him, I'd just as soon put you on my ignore list. Did that make any sense at all?

The bit of rampage you quoted was in response to LC...or possibly NYerRoman. Neither can admit that European Colonialism had deep impacts on the rest of the world that are felt in the conflicts of today. It's just "All the U.S.' fault," all the time. I'll never forget LC's comment that "The rest of the world has largely forgotten about colonialism." :eek: I got very tired of the dogmatism. Personally, I happen to like that one and am kinda happy it got dredged back up. It appeals to the fiesty side of me. :D

[PaulH]

MP,

It appears that you don't have this vital missing link to a more intelligent discussion of Ann's book! Here it is - the truth! Ha! Ha!

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1233

Regards,
PH

[Merryprankster]

On Cuba: While noting how Cuba felt towards Moscow and why it wanted the missiles in the first place is interesting color information, it provides no real relevance to the Cuban missile crisis. Cuba’s feelings didn’t affect the outcome because neither the U.S. nor the USSR cared. Cuba’s motivations for allowing the Soviets to put missiles there are immaterial to the resolution of the Crisis. It is only that they allowed the Soviets to put them there that matters. Cuba had no say in their withdrawal. To be blunt, Castro’s feelings on the subject didn’t matter. It’s nice information, but it has no bearing on the Cuban Missile Crisis and its ultimate resolution at all.


Now, I am perfectly willing to listen to a good rationale as to why Castro's thoughts on the subject matter. I do understand that such information would be useful if looking at the entire history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, or if we were discussing similarities and differences between superpower use/support of geostragically situated nations, but I'm at a loss to identify the importance of it in this particular instance. You have stated a bit about why you think it's important to know that, but I'm either not understanding you, or I just disagree.

I'm capable of being convinced--I just don't see the relevance when looking at it from the perspective Coulter and I were looking at it (same perspective re: approaching the issue, different viewpoints about the outcome, obviously.)

[Nick Forrer]

MP
I’m going to try one last time to explain why exactly I decided to originally post on this thread. If its still not clear then well…………….at least I tried. In your ‘review’ (which in and of itself I have no issue with) you wrote the following:

‘Let me explain the Cuban Missile Crisis in a nutshell. The U.S. found out the USSR was putting nuclear capable missiles in Cuba. Understandably, the U.S. was annoyed and viewed this as a serious threat to U.S. security. Perfectly reasonable. The Kennedy admin made public accusations and demanded their removal. The USSR played stupid and said they weren't there. Rhetorical escalation ensued, forces were deployed in different areas and DEFCON went up. There was some angriness between Sov and U.S. Naval forces.

It was probably the closest the world came to nuclear winter.

In the end, the U.S. presented smoking gun evidence that the USSR WAS putting nukes in Cuba. In a solution that allowed the Soviets to save face, Kennedy agreed to remove the Hercules (I think they were called) nukes from Turkey that were aimed at the Soviet Union, in exchange for the Cuban nukes to go away. The Sovs accepted the arrangement.’

I will start by saying that, in my view at least, history is an endless concatenation of events each one bleeding into the next with no clearly defined cut off points. Hence there is a certain degree of arbitrariness as to when one historical event ends and another begins. However, for the purposes of historical analysis I agree these cut off points have to be made and, ipso facto, judgements about what information should be included in a historical account/analysis and what shouldn’t i.e. what is relevant and what isn’t. With that reality acknowledged then your nutshell account of the Cuban missile crisis began with the phrase: ‘The U.S. found out the USSR was putting nuclear capable missiles in Cuba.’

Now I felt that two important chronologically earlier events were missing from your account:
1) The soviets reason for wanting the missiles in CUBA i.e. the fact that (as you later mention granted) US missiles were already based near and pointed at the USSR (An earlier US action that its probably fair to say precipitated the crisis)
2) Castro’s reasons for wanting the missiles in CUBA i.e. the fact that they wanted to prevent another US invasion (another earlier US action that again its probably fair to say precipitated the crisis.)

Now I agree as I have already stated that Castro had no say in their withdrawal from CUBA but as you have conceded he did have a say in them being put there in the first place. SO I THINK THIS INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE I.E. THE TIME AND PLACE WE ARE AT NOW AND SO THAT ANYONE READING THIS NUTSHELL ACCOUNT (WHATEVER YOUR ORIGINAL REASONS FOR POSTING IT WERE) WOULD GET THE FULL STORY. AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOUR ACCOUNT IS INACCURATE- ONLY THAT IT WAS INCOMPLETE AND AS I HAVE SAID AN INCOMPLETE ACCOUNT CAN BE JUST AS MISLEADING AS AN INNACCURATE ONE ESPECIALLY TO SOMEONE WHO DOESN’T HAVE THE TIME/INCLINATION/ACCESS TO ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.

Either way the point has been made many times by now and the information is out there I’m not going to go through it again. Maybe well just have to agree to disagree.

BTW thanks for the apology-accepted and appreciated.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Nick,
Did you bother to think aboout WHY the US would put those missles in Europe there in the first place? Typical of the sloppy thinking of the 'all is evil is caused by those wacky Americans' crowd is to miss WHY the US might do something.

The USSR had a military force much larger than that of the NATO allies, in forward positions, pointed at the heart of NATO. The nuclear missles were a deterant. From what? From an aggressive, viscious regime that murdered tens of millions of it's own citizens, invaded and ocupied surrounding countries, and dropped a iron curtain over Europe after WW2 by preventing free elections. Not to mention that the USSR was dedicated to 'world revolution.'

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer

Now I felt that two important chronologically earlier events were missing from your account:
1) The soviets reason for wanting the missiles in CUBA i.e. the fact that (as you later mention granted) US missiles were already based near and pointed at the USSR (An earlier US action that its probably fair to say precipitated the crisis)
2) Castro’s reasons for wanting the missiles in CUBA i.e. the fact that they wanted to prevent another US invasion (another earlier US action that again its probably fair to say precipitated the crisis.)

Now I agree as I have already stated that Castro had no say in their withdrawal from CUBA but as you have conceded he did have a say in them being put there in the first place. SO I THINK THIS INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE I.E. THE TIME AND PLACE WE ARE AT NOW AND SO THAT ANYONE READING THIS NUTSHELL ACCOUNT (WHATEVER YOUR ORIGINAL REASONS FOR POSTING IT WERE) WOULD GET THE FULL STORY. AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOUR ACCOUNT IS INACCURATE- ONLY THAT IT WAS INCOMPLETE AND AS I HAVE SAID AN INCOMPLETE ACCOUNT CAN BE JUST AS MISLEADING AS AN INNACCURATE ONE ESPECIALLY TO SOMEONE WHO DOESN’T HAVE THE TIME/INCLINATION/ACCESS TO ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.

I think the point here that you're missing is the purpose of MP's giving a nutshell account of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

MP was disagreeing with Coulter's characterization of the Cuban Missile Crisis as a strategic defeat for the United States. Therefore, he provided an account of why it was a strategic victory for the US, and provided enough background to give context for his points.

While the points you mention are important for a historical perspective on the Cuban Missile Crisis, that's not what he was doing; he was making a very specific argument and including only the information necessary to make his point. The points you cited are irrelevant to whether or not the CMC was a strategic victory or defeat for the US, and thus it would have been meaningless to include them.

[Merryprankster]

Nick,

FatherDog said it. I thought it was obvious, but I guess I needed to be clearer. You're absolutely right that from a historical account perspective, that is important information. I said as much here:


I do understand that such information would be useful if looking at the entire history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, or if we were discussing similarities and differences between superpower use/support of geostragically situated nations, but I'm at a loss to identify the importance of it in this particular instance.

However, given that I was approaching the issue from analyzing whether or not the OUTCOME of said crisis was a strategic victory or loss for the United States, Castro's wishes - or even the fact that he allowed them there in the first place - is irrelevant. I was providing a nutshell account of U.S.-USSR relations and actions during the crisis. Mea Culpa for bad labeling.

It only matters that the missles WERE there, not how they came to be there, for the purposes of analyzing the subsequent actions of the U.S. and USSR, and the outcome. I don't know how to be any clearer. I am not suggesting that you have a problem comprehending, simply that I don't know how else to phrase it more clearly.

I also noted you seemed to take some issue with the idea that Leninism is violently hostile to capitalism. I think that it's impossible to defend any other stance. Leninism is an outgrowth of Marxist doctrine, with some important, fundamental differences. Marxist doctrine is one of deterministic history. That is, the stages of human history—and how society/government will be in the future, are immutable. They WILL happen, regardless of events. The exact timeline may vary from place to place, but in any society, regardless of individual choices, the stages of human history he identifies WILL come about. Human history is the history of class struggle. Societies will reach a capitalism phase, where there are capitalists (bourgeoisie) who own the means of production and workers (proletariat) who do not. The proletariat eventually rebels against the bourgeoisie—at first in striking/unionized demonstration etc, in pockets, and then, as the proletariat grows, in a unified front against the capitalists. To quote the Communist Manifesto:


Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Marxism views this history as inexorable. No force can alter it and, importantly, you cannot bring about the revolution—you are swept up into it or against it. Although Marxism is hostile to capitalism, because it views the system as exploitative, it is not hostile to capitalism in the sense that it seeks to actively overthrow that structure. Rather, it insists that the proletariat (and capitalist system in general) will reach some critical mass that will overthrow capitalism in a proletariat revolution regardless of human action. This is an important distinction.
Leninism is doctrinally different. Lenin believed that the proletariat would not become conscious of its own power, but rather, would be satisfied with the benefits of organized labor. The proletariat revolution would never come unless brought about. From Lenin’s “What is to be done?” written in 1902:

The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness [cont]

[Merryprankster]

Lenin’s solution is a core of revolutionaries who are the vanguard to lead the workers into understanding their true power as the proletariat, and that this vanguard must be small to avoid bourgeoisie detection. In essence, the vanguard must be subversive as well as revolutionary. [Marx’s vanguard was a political party, vice revolutionaries]. Further, Lenin asserts that the proletariat will never overthrow the bourgeoisie except through violent revolution: Lenin proclaimed in the 1902 publication of What Is To Be Done?, that overthrow of the capitalist system “is impossible without a violent revolution” Lenin also did not believe that one of Marx’s prerequisites – a highly industrialized society was necessary for revolution, clearly demonstrated by his use of Russian peasants in the October revolt. Industrialization could happen later. This is markedly different from Marx’s theory that society must pass through certain stages before the revolution. Put bluntly, Lenin’s revolution was forced.

So, Lenin’s doctrine, succinctly:
1. The Proletariat revolution does not just happen, it is brought about. Consequently, the stages of Marxist historical doctrine need not be followed (ie, industrialization doesn’t have to happen before a proletariat revolution).

2. The revolution will not happen without a vanguard of subversive revolutionaries to combat the bourgeoisie.

3. The revolution must be violent. There is no other way.

Lenin also believed that the highest form (ie, end state, not high as in great) of capitalism is Imperialism. That is, a joining and reaching of the bourgeoisie across geopolitical boundaries to build capitalist, economic empires which continued to exploit the proletariat. This stage was definitely linked to colonialization, which slowed the onset of the proletarian revolution. Lenin cited Europe’s colonial powers, and the United States, as states in or well on their way to capitalist imperialism. (See his Critique of Global Capitalism). The outgrowth of this is that the vanguard must also cross geopolitical lines to foment transnational Proletariat revolution.

Clearly, Lenin advocated transnational subversive revolutionary activity, to violently overthrow capitalist societies. Future Soviet regimes adhered to this modus. As the Soviet Union increased its ability to project force and influence abroad, it loomed large in the minds of foreign policy makers and experts in the west, for obvious reasons – a giant nation with tremendous resources, manpower and influence devoted to global violent overthrow of capitalist society was something they weren't precisely comfortable with.

I think it's pretty obvious that Leninist doctrine is demonstrably, both in ideology and deed, violently opposed to capitalist systems and capitalist states and actively seeks to dismantle the entire structure in a bloody way.

[MasterKiller]

Discussion of Leninist doctrine make Grok sleepy.

[Merryprankster]

Cogito ergo CMA.

Ah, the irony.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


Ah, the irony. http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=2760993260129&pid=0887392040&rate.x=280&rate.y=7

[Merryprankster]

LOL!

Yah got me there.

[MonkeySlap Too]

And Marx was proved correct as no society becanme communist except by the point of a gun. And despite the views of most American liberals, no one wanted live with a boot on thier neck. It's pretty funny how Carter and his crew, and major news anchors of the day at first could not explain the fall of the soviet union, then recast themselves as 'cold warriors.'

The Soviet system made the Nazi's look like amateurs in it's lust for the blood of it's own people.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
The Soviet system made the Nazi's look like amateurs in it's lust for the blood of it's own people.

Yes, but at least they weren't being oppressed by the capitalist scrum.

[Merryprankster]

And Marx was proved correct as no society becanme communist except by the point of a gun.

Lenin. Marx just kinda figured the revolution would happen.

[anton]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
And Marx was proved correct as no society becanme communist except by the point of a gun.

Firstly I think you mean Lenin. Secondly I would argue that there hasn't been a Communist state in existance yet. Some claimed to aspire to Socialism or Communism, but never achieved a decent version of either. At the most elementary level I would say this was due to the fact that Communism is predicated on the possibility of all people in a society acting altruistically all the time - clearly a fallacious assumption. Capitalism relies on the flawed nature of humanity to function, which IMHO is one of the main reasons it works so well.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Was it Lenin? I always get my blood thirsty despots mixed up with the dimwitted philosophers. The two always seem to go together.

[anton]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
Was it Lenin? I always get my blood thirsty despots mixed up with the dimwitted philosophers. The two always seem to go together. :D

[Chang Style Novice]

Just because you're wrong about some stuff doesn't make you a dimwit. Marx was right about a LOT of stuff. And wrong about a good bit, too.

That said, there has never been a truly Marxist government ever, precisely because he was such a pie-in-the-sky idealist. The most successful (in terms of gaining power) "Marxist" economies have actually been state-controlled monopolies, and what Marx prescribed was control by the workers.

[MonkeySlap Too]

On the contrary. He was a dimwit.

[anton]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Just because you're wrong about some stuff doesn't make you a dimwit. Marx was right about a LOT of stuff. And wrong about a good bit, too.

That said, there has never been a truly Marxist government ever, precisely because he was such a pie-in-the-sky idealist. The most successful (in terms of gaining power) "Marxist" economies have actually been state-controlled monopolies, and what Marx prescribed was control by the workers.

I concur.

[Chang Style Novice]

Monkeyslap -

I think that if you read Marx as a social critic rather than a politician, you will find that he had a great deal of insight that still applies today. His solutions are hopeless, I grant you, but his perception of the problems is pretty much without flaw.

[Christopher M]

One of the contentious issues with Marxism as a process of criticism is that the method and subsequent observations are merely internally consistent and self-fulfilling.

By 'process of criticism' I mean an extant method by which we might understand society, situate ourselves in it, and inform our interactions with it.

By 'merely internally consistent' I mean that the observations follow only if every party involved shares the same worldview and has situated themselves appropriately - but fails to understand people whose understanding comes from divergant social theories.

By self-fulfilling I mean that, once parties have situated themselves in the Marxist context in order to proceed with an active process of criticism, their actions are informed, by nature of that situating, to produce the predicted observations.

The most important area where these issues collapse concerns Marx's depiction of the interaction between the capitalist and proletariat. This has immediate analogs in related social theories - Nietzsche's will to power, Freud's Oedipal issues, etc. The assumption for many of these theorists is that everyone necessarily situates themselves in the dialectic, whose motive force is unassailable. Eg. the assumption is that every relationship is a master-slave relationship, everyone is situated (qua any given relationship) as master or as slave, and the appropriate drive in each case is universal.

The renovation supplied by the classical liberals (as well as the Freudians and others) was to suggest that the dialectic was neither universal nor necessary, and is indeed a pathological condition which may be remedied.

The original problems I noted, of mere internal consistency and self-fulfilment, can be seen by considering a clash between agents of these different ideologies. Precisely because the former sees the dialectic as universal, he will situate an other as master or slave even if that other is himself beyond the dialectic, and the relationship will unfold accordingly. The former ideology can trump the latter, then, as only one 'willing' party is needed to organize the dialectic.

The Marxists and classical liberals approach this problem differently. Insofar as the former take the dialectic to be universal, they necessarily require a utopian revolution to remedy its effects - revolutionary because progress can not be made upon something unassailable, and utopian because a process universal to relationship can only be removed by removing relationships. The problems with this have been noted previously in the thread.

By assuming the dialectic to be surpassable, the classical liberals are free to espouse a progressive and realist solution. Their solution is alchemical or revelatory - it is precisely by understanding that the dialectic may be surpassed that it is surpassed; a sort of saving gnosis. The problems with this have been noted previously in this post: the saving gnosis requires willing participants and is trumped by the non-participant.

How's that for some academese?

[Merryprankster]

Chris M has captured the correct and taken it for re-education.

CSN,

I don't think you're stupid, but I'm going to try and make what Chris M said a little more accessible. Largely because he admits it's academese, and because I have a problem understanding it too. :D So I'm going to cast it in terms I'm comfortable with. Just because.

Put more simply, the reason that Marxism as a critique of world history and capitalism, seems to make so much **** sense so much of the time is that it's processes are irrefutable using the logic of Marxism. (Chris M's internally self-consistant) If you accept the assumptions of Marxism, there's not much room to maneuver regarding its conclusions (self-fulfilling). The problem is that the assumptions in Marxism are also related to the method of argumentation itself in at least two major areas: Determinism and the material dialectic. Marx's goal was to describe reality, at least regarding the human condition, and I believe, because of his assumptions, more than just that as well. If you allow other approaches to describing the world - Marxism falls apart. When you argue Marxism, in order to be right, you are trapped in its framework.

In a way, it's like Euclidean geometry--the flat shapes and angles and lines we all learned in junior high: Euclidean geometry is a self-consistant system. Using its logic and its assumptions, you can't reach any other conclusions than the ones Euclidean geometry reaches. Euclidean geometry attempts to describe reality and does a good job at a portion of it. The minute you start drawing two dimensional figures on curved surfaces, Euclidean geometry goes out the window. It's conclusions become wrong and no longer describe reality. If you want to be right with Euclidean geometry, you are trapped in its framework.

Like Euclidean geometry, Marx's perception and solutions of the problems are directly related to staying in his logically consistent, self-fulfilling framework. The minute you step outside its parameters, it falls apart. Again, just like Euclidian geometry, Marxism isn't useless, it's just not universal and it doesn't hold true for different parameter configurations. This makes it a good model for certain situations that meet a very specific set of criteria and a bad one for others.

Now, you could argue that his parameters are correct so my analogy to Euclidean geometry is a bad one. That is, whereas Euclidean geometry's basic framework is NOT universal, Marx's is. So he's still right.

However, Marx bases his parameters (and much of his subsequent argumentation) on a scientifically deterministic view of the universe. Unfortunately for him, determinism is wrong. It does not describe the framework of reality. Determinism is a pretty simple idea: If I know all the laws governing forces and matter in the universe, and I know where everything is now, then I should be able to calculate, exactly, the history of the universe, and predict the future unerringly. The implications of this are staggering because it really and truly eliminates free will. Plugging in the right data, for instance, will demonstrate conclusively that you had a beer and watched the hockey game at precisely thus and such a time on such and such a day. It would even conclude or predict "love," "marriage" - and human history.

Now, the immediately obvious problem with determinism as a USEFUL philosohpy is that there's no computer powerful enough to crunch all that data. However, even if there WAS, thanks to quantum mechanics, determinism cannot be right. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is the most easily grasped example: I can never determine exactly how fast something is going and I can never determine exactly where it is. Further, the more accurately I determine how fast something is going, the less accurately I know where it is and vice versa. The exact reasons for this aren't important. However, this principle is a limit of the universe and NOT a limit of human equipment.

Determinism was an outgrowth of classical mechanics, and when it when out the window, determinism did too. Defenders of determinism are now left with some rather painfully intricate (and weak) arguments and saying things like "well, the Uncertainty Principle COULD be wrong and we just don't know enough about the universe yet," but that's pretty sad.

Chris did a fabulous job on the dialectic so no need to go there...

Consequently, there is a certain irony in Leninism (and Maoist) success. Marx was adamant that human history and capitalist society had to reach certain stages prior to the proletariat revolution. One of the very critical pieces is that a highly industrialized nation is required to solidify the master-slave relationship. Russia and China hardly qualified at the time of their revolution. So, Marx's view of history is demonstrably wrong, within his own framework and reasoning as proletariat revolutions aren't supposed to happen like that.

Now, the common counter to this, from Marxists, is that "Well, these weren't proletariat revolutions, they were SOME OTHER kind of revolution, so Marx is still right." However, the fact that the revolutions occurred OUTSIDE his framework admits the possibility that there are other ways of looking at things, which, according to Marx, there isn't. All that's left are some painful bits of sophistry. No wonder Communist regimes had to keep re-writing their history books everytime something happened that didn't fit the framework.

Conclusion - Marxism (or any of its deterministic outgrowths) as a universally consistent picture of reality: ****ed twice, roughly, and sent to bed without supper.

[Chang Style Novice]

Chris, MP -

If that isn't quite what I said, it's more or less what I meant. Marx' failures are definitely in his dogmatism. I still maintain that when he was observing rather than proscribing (and he often didn't realize what the limits of his ability to observe are) he was sharply on point.

[Merryprankster]

I still maintain that when he was observing rather than proscribing (and he often didn't realize what the limits of his ability to observe are) he was sharply on point.

And we're utterly disagreeing with you.

He cast the world in a dialectic way. We maintain that that is not the only valid way to look at the world. In fact, it doesn't accurately describe the world at all and is useful only in a small subset of situations.

We maintain that the dialectic is neither necessary nor accurate to viewing the structure of the human condition.

His observations are cast in that light and are fundamentally flawed.

[Chang Style Novice]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
(and he often didn't realize what the limits of his ability to observe are)

(sic)

[Merryprankster]

Oops. My apologies for not reading more carefully.

However, I was responding to this:


but his perception of the problems is pretty much without flaw.

Which I believe is nearly as wrong as can be.

[Christopher M]

I was kind of hoping to get Oolong'd. Oh well. Maybe Marx is right and we're deluding ourselves though... I read a study out of Berkeley that said right-wing people are stupid.

[Chang Style Novice]

Chris and MP -

Well, I was mostly responding to the idea (put forth by Monkeyslap) that there is nothing of any worth in Marx. I think that is as wrong as can be, too. Although the manichean us vs. them dynamic is very strong in Marx, and definitely a source of major problems, if you can get past it he was as perceptive as anyone and way more than most.

Chris -

No oolong for you! However, if you'd like I can mail you a patchouli scented soy meditation candle.

[MonkeySlap Too]

And I strongly disagree. Marx was really unremarkable in his perception compared to others.

I honestly think Marx is a variation of what he claimed religion to be: an opiate for the intellectually weak with elitist superiority syndroms.

As evidence I produce: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Jung - mass murderers all in the service of a severly flawed philosophy.

Living in the SF Bay area as I do, it is astounding at the sheer anger and resentment that comes off of the Marx apologists. It is not hard to imagine these same people trying murder millions to pursue thier 'just' cause. In fact many of them refer to this as a requirment for true 'revolution.'

Marxism is a mental virus that infects the weak of mind. His observations are limited by his dialectism, and his conclusions are the shoddy. Frankly, his work is indefensible. I view Marx as one of the starting points of the decline in Western philosophy.

Fundamentaly he was responding to the inequalities of his day, but his limited intellect simply repackaged the same feudal system under a shiny new wrapper.

I don't beleive in royalty or class predujice either. But that doesn't mean I have to accept the oppression of the commons. Marxism fundamentally fails because it starts with poorly conceived ai priori assumptions and starts lieing to itself from there.

The same arguments to support Das Capital can be made in favor of Mein Kampf. Both schools of thought unleashed tremendous evil by tapping into the insecurities of people in that day. For humor, I use the same arguments that our lovable 'democratic leaders' of the past half-century used to praise the Soviet Union, only use it to put a different view on the same crimes from Nazi Germany. It works perfectly, yet the apologists for the Soviets have a hard time accepting it. Of course, out here they still make apologies for a system that was such a failure and so unwanted that the people had to be held in check by tanks and machine guns. Marxism is as evil and ignorant as Nazism, and we need to start looking hard at the facts and the history.

Ach, it drives me crazy....

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
...the same feudal system under a shiny new wrapper.

Definitely. I interpret MP's remarks about limited context as referring to this. Had Marx been writing centuries earlier, I'd have more confidence in the integrity of his insights. However, the currents of liberal criticisms of feudalism were already available in his time, and he anachronistically failed to account for them - the same mistake his followers maintain today.


I don't beleive in royalty or class predujice either. But that doesn't mean I have to accept the oppression of the commons.

But you're recast into a Master struggling to dominate the Slave because the dialectic is assumed to be universal, regardless of your intentions - and the other situating you in this fashion will not fail to feel oppressed. And similarly, liberalism is seen as feudalism through this prism.

[Merryprankster]

His observations are limited by his dialectism

I take it even further to saying his observations are wrong. And I do so because his prism of dialectism admits nothing outside it. Thus I agree whole heartedly with MS2.

I disagree with MS2 because I I think he was an especially bright fellow in a purely academic sort of way. His critiques lack the sort of instinctual insight a great beat cop has about what's "really" going on. He was not especially perceptive, but he was terribly smart, in a purely academic kind of way. His opposite might be a guy like Mao. Incredibly politically saavy, cunning and clever. But SMART? I don't think he had that kind of academic acumen.

I liken him, in an ironic twist to Poindexter. Here's a guy who is literally so **** smart that he can master complicated material from a TEXT. Didn't need explanations at all. He's the sort of fellow that could teach himself particle and nuclear physics without any trouble (and did, according to "The Nightingale's Song.)

But he can't figure out people to save his life--gets confused about political (broad not narrow) situations. Not a very perceptive guy...just really, really smart.


Marxism fundamentally fails because it starts with poorly conceived ai priori assumptions and starts lieing to itself from there.

I'm not sure you can call the assumptions ai priori. Marxism is a materialist doctrine. I certainly agree that they are poorly conceived because they ignore other evidence and oversimplify complicated situations. Than again, maybe I don't understand what you mean?


Definitely. I interpret MP's remarks about limited context as referring to this.

Yeah. And other situations similar to the feudal system.

Somebody (I don't remember who) theorized that the reason the Communist party never caught on in the United States is because we don't have a feudal history and thus no context for Communism in the U.S.

[Chang Style Novice]

MS2 -

C'mon, man. Bringing Pol Pot Stalin and the rest into this is BS. They are responsible for what they did, Marx is not. You don't figure Neitzche was to blame for the murders of the Holocaust just because Hitler was a fan, do you? Maybe the Beatles killed Sharon Tate? How about Judas Priest, are they responsible for the deaths of those two dumb kids who shot themselves?

Anyway, I see class war as a real dynamic, but not the only one going, and I guess you could say that makes me a Marxist puppet, but considering he thought class war was the only thing to be concerned about, I think that's oversimplifying just a little. Okay, I think it's oversimplifying to the point of idiocy, actually. I am not a Marxist just because I think he had some good observations, and you seem to be intent on tarring anyone who acknowledges any value in Marx' writings with the blame for Stalinist purges. That's ridiculous, and I know you're smarter than that.

Anyway, I've got plenty of stuff to do, and we seem to be stuck at an impasse, so laters.

[anton]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
I honestly think Marx is a variation of what he claimed religion to be: an opiate for the intellectually weak with elitist superiority syndroms.

As evidence I produce: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Jung - mass murderers all in the service of a severly flawed philosophy.
I can't believe that neither MP nor ChrisM responded to this comment.


I view Marx as one of the starting points of the decline in Western philosophy.
Who then, in your opinion, was the last great Western philosopher?


Fundamentaly he was responding to the inequalities of his day, but his limited intellect simply repackaged the same feudal system under a shiny new wrapper.
Communism is unworkable. But by what intellectual process do you equate it to feudalism?


The same arguments to support Das Capital can be made in favor of Mein Kampf. Both schools of thought unleashed tremendous evil by tapping into the insecurities of people in that day. For humor, I use the same arguments that our lovable 'democratic leaders' of the past half-century used to praise the Soviet Union, only use it to put a different view on the same crimes from Nazi Germany. It works perfectly, yet the apologists for the Soviets have a hard time accepting it. Of course, out here they still make apologies for a system that was such a failure and so unwanted that the people had to be held in check by tanks and machine guns.
I would say that if the Soviet Union ever was a "Marxist state" it was for an extremely brief period of time in its early history. As for being kept in check by tanks, did you know that a very large portion of the Russian population still support Stalin's actions and policies and still think he was a great guy? Do you know what percentage of the seats in the democratically elected Russian Duma are held by Communist party members?


Marxism is as evil and ignorant as Nazism, and we need to start looking hard at the facts and the history.

Ach, it drives me crazy....
First you equate Marxism to feudalism, then to what occurred under Stalin in the USSR, now to Nazism. Having been born in the USSR, having had close family friends suffer under Stalin in the worst ways, and having had relatives suffer in Nazi concentration camps, I would strongly disagree. And quite honestly I can't believe that I am the first in the thread to do so

[Merryprankster]

I would say that if the Soviet Union ever was a "Marxist state" it was for an extremely brief period of time in its early history.

See below.


Consequently, there is a certain irony in Leninism (and Maoist) success. Marx was adamant that human history and capitalist society had to reach certain stages prior to the proletariat revolution. One of the very critical pieces is that a highly industrialized nation is required to solidify the master-slave relationship. Russia and China hardly qualified at the time of their revolution. So, Marx's view of history is demonstrably wrong, within his own framework and reasoning as proletariat revolutions aren't supposed to happen like that.

Now, the common counter to this, from Marxists, is that "Well, these weren't proletariat revolutions, they were SOME OTHER kind of revolution, so Marx is still right." However, the fact that the revolutions occurred OUTSIDE his framework admits the possibility that there are other ways of looking at things, which, according to Marx, there isn't. All that's left are some painful bits of sophistry. No wonder Communist regimes had to keep re-writing their history books everytime something happened that didn't fit the framework.

Conclusion - Marxism (or any of its deterministic outgrowths) as a universally consistent picture of reality: ****ed twice, roughly, and sent to bed without supper.


Communism is unworkable. But by what intellectual process do you equate it to feudalism?

I think we need to be clearer. LENINISM (and Maoism and...) doesn't significantly change the social structure when compared to feudalism. They're very similar, only you get to add even more fear and oppression through a police state. Communism as envisioned by Marx did change the social structure and was not restructured feudalism - it sought to overthrow the vestiges of feudal society... How you approach the subject depends entirely upon whether you are looking at Communism AS PRACTICED or Communism AS CONCEIVED. I think neither of you are right or wrong here, just looking at it from a different perspective.


First you equate Marxism to feudalism, then to what occurred under Stalin in the USSR, now to Nazism. Having been born in the USSR, having had close family friends suffer under Stalin in the worst ways, and having had relatives suffer in Nazi concentration camps, I would strongly disagree. And quite honestly I can't believe that I am the first in the thread to do so

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Marxism isn't equivalent to fascism? 'Cos I think that's demonstrably true. But, if you're saying that Stalinism and Nazism aren't awfully similar, then I would strongly disagree. Both are fascist concepts and governments, only one is leftist and the other is rightist.

However, none of these bits of arguments really touch on the heart of the issue: Was Marx RIGHT? And I think it's pretty clear that his assumptions, reasoning and conclusions are unsupportable except in a very small minority of cases.

[MonkeySlap Too]

MP - thank you for taking my hit-and-run comments and slamming the correct through the forehead of dimwitteddom.

Nazism and the Soviet system are remarkably similar - the significant difference being that in communism first you kil anyone who might be intelligent, then terrorize the rest, whereas in Nazism you just terrorize - no matter how bright or stupid they might be.

I can't understand how any thinking and feeling human being can defend Marxism. It is exactly the same as defending Nazism. Appalling.

[MonkeySlap Too]

CSN - comparing a philosophy that incites mass murder through 'class struggle' and the claim the Beatles influenced Manson is a little bit of a stretch.

Teaching hatred and war breed hatred and war. Check out the Islamic world if you want some imperical evidence on that.

MP had me laughing out loud with the Poindexter thing - EXACTLY.

[Christopher M]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is explicitly a model analogous to feudalism. Insofar as Marxism gives us instructions to achieve this dictorship, but fails in a mandate for its transformation into communism - the anti-feudal communist model is a moot point.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
CSN - comparing a philosophy that incites mass murder through 'class struggle' and the claim the Beatles influenced Manson is a little bit of a stretch.

Teaching hatred and war breed hatred and war. Check out the Islamic world if you want some imperical evidence on that.

MP had me laughing out loud with the Poindexter thing - EXACTLY.

Interesting thing is that the culture of war and hatred was pushed onto the Islamic world by the Christians during the crusades. Prior to that, it was a peaceful and enlightened culture.

[Merryprankster]

Interesting thing is that the culture of war and hatred was pushed onto the Islamic world by the Christians during the crusades. Prior to that, it was a peaceful and enlightened culture.

This is simply not historically true. It's a commonly spouted "example" of how Christianity, the west, etc is the scourge of the world, but it's wrong. REALLY wrong. Islam was spread as much by the sword as by the pen. Not too different from any other religion.

Casting it as some sort of "peaceful and enlightened" community that was only brought to arms by Christianity's united opposition to Islam's control of "the Holy Land" is WILDLY inaccurate and ignores hundreds of years of battles and wars of expansion--not to mention strife within the Islamic community.

Unsupportable comes immediately to mind. So does "bunk." So does the Battle of Tours among others....

I'm not sure what context MS2 was thinking of when he made his comment, but the truth is that there are Madrassas in many countries across the world that espouse exceptionally violent views. They DO, in fact, teach hatred and war. These extremists teach that the world is divided into two units: The house of peace (Dar-al-Islam), and the house of war (Dar-al-Harb). There are also some choice views about regimes in Muslim parts of the world that these fellows consider apostate. According to these Madrassas (which teach only reading and writing and their interpretation of the Koran), it is the duty of true Muslims to combat the Dar-al-Harb and apostate Muslim regimes in jihad. In fact, many teach that those who do not participate in some way are not true Muslims.

The idea that these schools and ideas are uncommon is simply false. While the majority of the Muslim world does not subscribe to any of the various and violent extremist viewpoints, a small but significant portion does, and this has quite a violent impact on the world as a whole.

[MonkeySlap Too]

MP - that was what I was thinking about.

The myth of Islam as a religion of peace is a complete fabrication. The crusades were nothing but a border skirmish to the larger Islamic empire at the time. Only in the 20th century when the West truly occupied the remains of the Ottoman Empire did the crusades get considered a 'real' war in the Islamic world. The Turkish and Mongol invasions - now THOSE were wars.

Islam was spread by the sword to every country except Indonesia, were a bizairre form of Hindu-Buddhism was in place that supported a caste system.

75% of the wars and insurrections in the world today are initiated by Islamicists fulfilling thier teachings. 75%. Please don't give me any moral equivilancy BS about it being our fault. That is total BS.

The only countries that trade in black African slaves are Islamic.

Islamic forces invaded, conquored, and converted by the sword the entire Eastern Roman Empire - which was Christian. Most of it BEFORE the Crusades. In fact, the crusades were initiated at the request of the Eastern Roman empire, who was under seige by these peace loving monothiests.

The Q'uran itself has some choice verses as what to do to Jews and Christians.

If you beleive they are peaceful, I suggest you get your girlfriend a bee-keeper suit for Valentines day. (MP - was it named after you?)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by joedoe
Interesting thing is that the culture of war and hatred was pushed onto the Islamic world by the Christians during the crusades. Prior to that, it was a peaceful and enlightened culture.

This has been already addressed; but simply because it's such a common and offensive misconception, and some historical resources may be appropriate, see:

The Battle of Tours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours), The Great Siege of Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Malta#The_Great_Siege), and the Siege of Vienna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seige_of_Vienna). You'll note that these, the crucial battles in the conflict between Islam and Christianity, occurred in France, Italy, and Austria, respectively - not ancestral homes of Islam, you might imagine.

You may also note that three of the five capitals of Christianity, Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria), Antioch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch), and Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) were conquered by Moslems by the seventh century, and the fourth, Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople) in the fifteenth - let us not forget that the finest church in Christendom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia) has been used as a mosque for six centuries now.

On a similar note, you may consider the Moorish Occupation of Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain#Al-Andalus).

[joedoe]

It appears that my education in history was a little incomplete :(

[anton]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

How you approach the subject depends entirely upon whether you are looking at Communism AS PRACTICED or Communism AS CONCEIVED.

Precisely. Except I would say that what you have termed "Communism as conceived" is Communism, and "Communism as practiced" something entirely different altogether. I would say that this lies at the crux of the problem I have with MonkeySlap's arguments. I hear it all the time: "Communism is bad - just look at what happened under Stalin"... What happened under Stalin wasn't Communism! It may possibly have been inspired by Communist ideas (at least this is what Lenin used to market himself), but those aspirations (if they ever really existed) IMHO died with Lenin.

BTW - I have no problem with people dissing Communism and Communists (I do it all the time), as long as it is done intelligently. Throwing everyone with leftist leanings in the same bag with Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Polpot, then adding a bit of Hitler, shaking it around and telling everyone to look at how ugly the mixture is doesn't qualify.

[Christopher M]

Saying Stalin et al. is an aberattion of Marxist theory is as inappropriate as saying he was following the communist ideal, though.

Stalin was an example of state capitalism/socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism), which results necessarily from the dictatorship of the proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat) (socialism), which is all precisely and explicitly within Marx's mandates, as the change to be induced upon the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (capitalism).

The two part ways only in the sense that Marx believed a second change would occur, resulting in a third social structure - communism.

However, the form and process of inducing this change has long been the problematic point in Marxist theory. I noted this above - if you mandate state socialism without knowing how you will then transform it into communism, your belief in communism is essentially inconsequential: what you're really mandating is simply state socialism. So, that this is what they got in Stalin (and everywhere else it was tried) is a) unsurprising, and b) completely consistent with the theory.

[Souljah]

in communism first you kil anyone who might be intelligent, then terrorize the rest

I'm afraid I'm in agreement with a majority of Antons comments - I don't see how you can make a generalised view of communism based on dictatorships that frankly used communism as a mask for their own purposes...you think that was how Marx and Engels envisioned their ideas manifesting themselves in society?

That said - I don't think we will ever see a "true" communist government in effect - partially because the Hardcore Capitalist countries will likely not allow it to arise - Trade embargo's, assassinations, etc will be the method repression. (ie Cuba + Chile)
In my view human beings are by nature too greedy for communism to exist in its purest form. -- or we [westerners] have been brought so far into this all or nothing capitalist ideal that change would only cause grievance for those who would otherwise be alot better off financially, and consequently cause more conflict.
Compromises and balances can be made though, and that is the real quest in my view.

BTW - did Ann Coulter really make this comment?

"WE SHOULD INVADE THEIR COUNTRIES, KILL THEIR LEADERS AND CONVERT THEM TO CHRISTIANITY!"
- Ann Coulter (on September 11 terrorists)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Souljah
I don't see how you can make a generalised view of communism based on dictatorships...

Then read my post which immediately preceeds yours, I explain it there.


the Hardcore Capitalist countries will likely not allow it to arise... we [westerners] have been brought so far into this all or nothing capitalist ideal

You seem to be making the same mistake we have discussed at length here - confusing 'capitalist' in colloquial usage with 'capitalist' in Marxist usage. The two mean entirely different things. 'This [colloquial] capitalist ideal' is not the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; it is not that which Marx criticized (except insofar as socialists struggle to make it so), rather it is an evolution of a liberalist philosophy which shared Marx's criticisms.

It is utterly impossible to understand contemporary or recent political/economic/social issues while confounding these two meanings to the term 'capitalism.'

[MonkeySlap Too]

Anton, the isea that communism died with 'Lenin' is absurd. Stalin was FAR more of a communist than Lenin. Lenin quickly realized that by killing everyone with leadership ability would not work - he was willing to let some intelligistia and foreign companies stay.

Stalin pushed the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to it's hit. Effectively outlawing any type of market or competition with the state. An essential, bloody step in Marxist theory.

I agree that the Marxist pie-in-the-sky vision is unattainable - but I would also argue that his 'philosophy' directly produces cretins like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Bela Kun and all those other 'heroes' of the revolution.

[KC Elbows]

Follow the thread drift to fine surf.

MST, am I correct that you are stating that islam is the core problem? Don't you feel this is at odds with MP's statement that it is a small, but significant minority of muslims causing the vast majority of the problems, and that the majority is, in fact, peaceful?

It just seems that you are arguing your points in a manner that is not complementary, and avoiding debate on those contrary points, when it would be interesting to hear why you think the other is wrong or right. Not trying to cause strife, it's just interesting to hear where intelligent people with similar views diverge, and it's incredibly boring at this point to hear where people with drastically different views disagree.

And, whoever cares to answer, doesn't the fact that our own form of government has been fairly successful in reigning in our own religious extremists, suggest that it is more likely the government than the religion that is the problem: or, more exactly, the lack of clear separation between the two?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
it is more likely the government than the religion that is the problem: or, more exactly, the lack of clear separation between the two?

Absolutely, the problem is government rather than religion. However, it's not a moot point to note that Christianity is distinguished by a theological mandate for that separation between church-and-state, whereas other religions mandate the opposite.

[Merryprankster]

MS2,

I disagree with the idea that "Islam is violent." Certain choice segments (and these are significant in number in terms of both specific dogma and member size) are certainly violent, but characterizing "Islam" as violent is overstating the case. For each part of the Koran that talks about what to do with Christians and Jews that is bad, there is a part that preaches tolerance because they are considered other people of the book.

For what its worth, the parts of the Koran that discuss doing horrible things to Christians and Jews are usually found in the context of "What it is permissible to do to Christians and Jews in times of war," and actually represent restraints upon the actions of Muslim warriors, who were free to do whatever they wanted to people who did not belong to Abrahamic religions. The thing is, radical sects view everything as a holy war against the Christians and Jews, so they authorize all wartime actions as opposed to the tolerant bits...

The problems you note in the Islamic world are just as much (if not more so) a function of colonialism as anything else. Much more so than Christians--and even Jews, Muslims view the Islamic world as a single community and have a word for that- Ummah - which encompasses all believers. That's a pretty stiff sense of brotherhood, even if it's not monolithic (after all, there are still factions).

There is a very real sense of disenfranchisement and lost glory in many parts of the Islamic world. Poor economic conditions and continual reminders that the Muslim world is no longer the shining beacon of prosperity and civilization it once was render many Muslims vulnerable to several strands of Islamic extremism (Salafists, Deobandis, Wahhabism, Dawa-ists, etc.) which preach that the Islamic world is not on top because it has fallen off the true path of Islam and because the Christians and Jews are in a conspiracy to choke out the Islamic faith.


Stalin pushed the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to it's hit. Effectively outlawing any type of market or competition with the state. An essential, bloody step in Marxist theory.

LENINIST history. Marx never specified what form the revolution would take. However, note that he prefered a worker's party, vice a revolutionary group. I don't think he expected extreme violence.

Souljah:


That said - I don't think we will ever see a "true" communist government in effect - partially because the Hardcore Capitalist countries will likely not allow it to arise - Trade embargo's, assassinations, etc will be the method repression.

Ridiculous. You'll never see a "true" communist government because Marx's observations about the world do not hold in any universal sense. It's like a 6 dimensional object. They exist on paper and in mathematics and have some interesting implications, but they don't exist in this world. Marx's ideas only exist as ideas. Powerful, but not very well suited as a model of reality.


In my view human beings are by nature too greedy for communism to exist in its purest form. -- or we [westerners] have been brought so far into this all or nothing capitalist ideal that change would only cause grievance for those who would otherwise be alot better off financially, and consequently cause more conflict.

Political axe... grinding, grinding... nubbin...


Chris M:


Absolutely, the problem is government rather than religion. However, it's not a moot point to note that Christianity is distinguished by a theological mandate for that separation between church-and-state, whereas other religions mandate the opposite.

True. However, Islam IS distinguished by an intentional and very heavy "blurring of the lines" between church, state and societal institutions. It is precisely this that we in the West tend to find so alien. Islam is not just a relationship between "man and good," it is also a social-political-economic structure. Islamic banking, etc. Democracy has a very real place in Islam - they even have a specific term for consensus-"ijma." However, such a democracy is unlikely to look precisely like our western versions.

[MonkeySlap Too]

MP - take another look at your Koran and your history - even the 'tolerant' parts of the Koran enforced Dhimmitude upon non-muslims. Islam was spread by the sword, and non-beleivers - even 'people of the book' like Jews and Christians are treated as bad or worse than African Americans after the Civil War.

Islam is not tolerant of the 'other.' Please visit the Islamic world if you doubt me. See for yourself. It is an elitist religion that is determined to overcome all other forms of thought. This philosophy is hard coded into the Koran - and if you push an Islamic theologian, and do not allow them to avoid the question, you will find that the 'mainstream' Islam is in fact militant. The 'reformers' what few manage to avoid being killed for apostacy, have very little grounding in the Koran.

Islam may have offered some improvements over earlier Arabian society - but pretty similar to other 'great civilizations' of it's day.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MerryPrankster
Islam IS distinguished by an intentional and very heavy "blurring of the lines" between church, state and societal institutions.

Are you saying that "blurring of the lines" is not problematic, regarding concerns of separation between church and state?

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

There is a very real sense of disenfranchisement and lost glory in many parts of the Islamic world. Poor economic conditions and continual reminders that the Muslim world is no longer the shining beacon of prosperity and civilization it once was render many Muslims vulnerable to several strands of Islamic extremism (Salafists, Deobandis, Wahhabism, Dawa-ists, etc.) which preach that the Islamic world is not on top because it has fallen off the true path of Islam and because the Christians and Jews are in a conspiracy to choke out the Islamic faith.

It's very similar to the revisionist 'history' you get when talking to Southern Separatists, actually - there's the same festering resentment and disenfranchisement, the same slanted view of prior conflicts, and the same "blood feud" mentality of revenge.

[Merryprankster]

MP - take another look at your Koran and your history - even the 'tolerant' parts of the Koran enforced Dhimmitude upon non-muslims.

Got my Koran on the bookshelf. :D Maybe I'll lug it out later. My point in mentioning it was simply to show that it's like most other religious documents - bits of it contradict other bits when taken out of context.

Dhimmi status was only granted to people of the book and litterally means "protected people." Dhimmis were certainly not entitled to the same priveleges as Muslims under Sharia (holding office, etc.) but they were exempt from mandatory Islamic duties. instead they paid a tax. They were, however, usually allowed to go about their business so long as it did not interfere with Sharia--for instance, they couldn't do normal type banking with Muslims. They certainly could do such banking with non-Muslims.

Moorish Spain was a great example of how Jews and Christians lived peacefully within a Sharia context. The Ottoman Empire was very tolerant, religiously, for several hundred years, especially when compared to Christian nations of its time. That tolerance did erode and I would be hard pressed to say exactly when, but certainly people were living peacefully in the Ottoman Empire when the Catholic Church was murdering anybody they could get their hands on.

No, Islamic history is not monolithic with poor treatment and endless war. It's got its ups and downs like any other. Some regimes and time periods were enlightened, peaceful and prosperous for all who lived within its borders (as much as they could be given the time period.) Others were cruel and warlike. The argument that it is a "peaceful" religion isn't precisely accurate, but neither is claiming that it is a religion of war.



Islam may have offered some improvements over earlier Arabian society - but pretty similar to other 'great civilizations' of it's day.

Precisely my point. Judged within the context of history, you can't make a supportable argument that Islam is some horrible, warlike, intolerant religion - at least any more than any other.


It is an elitist religion that is determined to overcome all other forms of thought.

This is more an endictment of religion as a whole than Islam.


and if you push an Islamic theologian, and do not allow them to avoid the question, you will find that the 'mainstream' Islam is in fact militant.

If, by militant, you mean violently opposed to other religions, that's simply not true and depends entirely on which theologian you are talking to and what school of thought they belong to. There are four major ones in Sunni Islam, (Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali) at least two in Shia Islam (Twelver and Sevener) and a host of others. In fact, the Hanafi school of Sunni Islamic thought is the largest--and most liberal, and estimated at 30% of the world population. It advocates use of independant reason based on the Koran and the Sunnah (collected sayings of the profit Mohammed). Also exceptionally liberal is the Shafi'i school, which has the second largest following estimated at 25%. Never mind the Muslims who don't care and are just trying to make a living, feed their families and live (which is the majority of ANY group).

The problem is that we are most acquainted with the guys who make the most noise and those are the ones who blow things up. You also have to deal with organizations that claim Islam in order to gain members, but which are, in fact, primarily criminal organizations, vice truly religiously motivated.

If however, you mean militant in the sense of highly given over to proselytizing abroad in an effort to gain converts, then that is absolutely true. Islam is one of the most aggressively evangelical religions the world has ever seen.


Are you saying that "blurring of the lines" is not problematic, regarding concerns of separation between church and state?

No, I'm suggesting that in Islam you cannot unblur those lines easily, and that that is precisely what we have a hard time wrapping our brains around. It's very foreign to us to see how religion might mandate the poltical, economic and social structure. There's not nearly as high a precedent for this in the Judeo-Christian world. While Christianity does not preclude theocracy, it emphasizes a personal relationship with God through Christ, providing guidelines for personal and family, vice community behavior. Judaism has a history of adapting itself and creating insular communities within other majorities and being largely apolitical (as a unit), not mention the fact that MOST of Mosaic law is designed with personal or family behavior in mind. Islam offers a template for society, judicial proceedings, banking, etc. and emphasizes a unified Muslim community.

Maybe it's not hard to wrap your brain around it intellectually, but I think it's difficult to "truly get" the full implications and ramifications since the concept is really rather odd to us.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Dhimmitude is exactly the issue, and it is not as 'enlightened' as it is made out to be. Far more often than not it represented brutal oppression - the yellow star worn by the Jews in Nazi Germany was a tradition in the Ottoman Empire. While - relatively speaking - Jews did better under Ottoman rule - there was still outright oppression and pogroms.

Ironically, some of the secular governments of the 20th century have proven WORSE.

Yes, it is an indictment of most state religions. But Islam (especially in the Hadith) in particular advocates war and killing. Even early Judaism with it's genocides against the followers of Baal and Moloch pales before the cruel hand of Islam.

[MonkeySlap Too]

More later - I'm on deadline...

[rogue]

Don't forget the Dhimmi were needed to get around restrictions in Islamic law.

[KC Elbows]

Cool discussion, wish I could contribute, but my knowledge of this topic is limited. It is good to see people with similar views debating the particulars, instead of agreeing so that the "other side" doesn't score a "win". Much more interesting discussion this way.

[Merryprankster]

Dhimmitude is exactly the issue, and it is not as 'enlightened' as it is made out to be.

I'm not suggesting that it is. I'm suggesting that to truly judge Dhimmitude and thus its reflection on Islam, you have to look at the concept of Dhimmitude in the context under which it was born. Dhimmitude represented significant improvement over previous treatment and placed restrictions on what Muslims could do to other people of the book. Improvements in humanity tend to be marked by incremental steps rather than giant leaps of niceness.

Clearly, the historical conceptualization of Dhimmi and Dhimmitude represents a huge human rights problem when viewed in the light of today's expectations about appropriate behavior towards your fellow man.


But Islam (especially in the Hadith) in particular advocates war and killing. Even early Judaism with it's genocides against the followers of Baal and Moloch pales before the cruel hand of Islam.

I think you are overstating the case here. Islam and Hinduism are the two religions of the Big Five that actually provide a social, economic and political organization. However, Islam adds two things to this equation: Evangelism and an overwhelming sense of Global Community. Because of this, we have a tendency to discuss "The Islamic world" as a monolithic animal. It is not and was not. Past Islamic Empires and Kingdoms acted independantly of each other, sometimes in the Name of Islam and sometimes not. This is no different than the various Christian kingdoms that were also (and equally) rife with warfare and cruelty. Christianity was just as much spread by force as by word of mouth and was just as cruel, if you start looking at the "Christian World" as a monolithic entity.

While Islam was no better than any other religion, it certainly wasn't any worse. There are many factors in play that contribute to the current violent state of "The Islamic World," (because I won't deny that it's violent). A particular subset of extremist Islam viewpoints is only one of them, and I would argue one of lesser importance than the negative impacts of Colonialism and its haphazard retreat.