The true face of the Left - Chavez supports Gaddafi

Well that's worthless vaccuous pap isn't it? Says nothing at all. I expect it made you feel better though.

 

It said no less than your opening post. We all get it. You're a liberal. What is with you people? I understand you like to pretend to be leftists and all, but the sense of superiority is mind boggling. It did make me feel better. Someone needs to call you people out. You stand in the way of social progress in every sense of the word. Liberals both fear and seek to impose big government and both fear and seek to instate freedoms. Its not my fault you have a confused and inconsistent ideology.

 

There is no venemous personal attack. There is only polemic. Have you read Lenin for instance? He is much nastier. I merely derided your view that those who think they are leftist - and wear the che Guevara t shirts - are not, by your standards. It is you keeping the gate to who can be admitted as "left". You are the one appointing yourself as arbiter. I prefer a more catholic view of what is "left" and to critique the different points of view within that large range on their merits.

Get a thicker skin. Look how people like Hitchens and Chosmky debate with each other. The polemic is often appropriate.

On the first half I take my hat off to you. I only wonder if you read the three volumes of Capital in German. Learning is always to be respected.

As to what is on the Left I wonder why you want to make it such ane exclusive club and this strikes me as sectarian. I prefer to make it clear that I am not a socialist, and support free trade and open markets, but with the State playing a role where markets fail, and with a social contract between the State and the people. For me capitalism is a progressive force and continues to develop the means of production (this would have made it a progressive force for Marx too, ironically).

Those who don't like capitalism are generally known as the Left, though their ideas may differ widely from each other and may have varying degrees of coherence. All leftists are not equal. Some are far more coherent than others.

Your personal situation doesn't matter for my argument to stand. I was discussing the point of view you held. The form of address was polemical (I about you) but it was based on a logic that those who strive for narrow definitions of what can be termed "Marxist" or 'socialsit" are usually members of small Marxist Leninist sects. My argument was against that type of thinking, which you have demonstrated. It was not against you as a person.

I think if you don't develop a thicker skin you may be disappointed with this place as it is generally full of subnormal rightwing trolls whose only purpose in posting is to bait leftists and centrists with outrageous obscenity. I have no problem with altruism - it is a worthy cause. But I have a lot of problems with communist priests (not you, I do not know you) who guard their own narrow ideology by setting personal morality tests for their comrades, based on how much personal sacrifice they make, how much they subjugate themselves to the cause and how much they destroy their own individuality to establish their revolutionary credentials. When ideologies are so narrowly defined, heretics are so readily excommunicated, personal moral codes are applied so ruthlessly - all characteristics of communistic organizations - then tyranny results. You have done the first...I am warning against the rest.

That was a magnificent punch which has knocked me clean over. But as I get up I realize that I am still right to question you. Your effort to avoid mediocrity is nothing more than an effort to avoid risk. It's like a monk in a monastery, who avoids the temptation to sin by isolating himself from the world. By taking a narrow political stance, and rejecting all else as 'mediocre', you really cut yourself off from life. Of course a conflict exists between serving moral interest and interacting with life's realities. It is that very conflict that life is about. It is our own failures and compromises as well as triumphs in that quest which make us human.

And to you too

 

I do agree with you that Lenin is most deliciously nasty.

I think the reason this poster takes a slightly narrower position on who is a leftist is because there are myriads of people out there masquerading as champions of the leftist cause when they are not Representative of "leftism" at all. The Che Guevara t shirt example is a good one. These youths have no idea what it even means to be a leftist in most cases. They wouldn't know a Marxist Leninist from a hole in the wall much less a pure Marxist.

Furthermore why should sectarianism in the leftist ranks matter to you, a non leftist?

 

Germany, Japan, South Korea and Israel. Oops!

Edit: Does Taiwan count? How about America?

 

I met Saul Alinsky shortly before he died. His tactics have been adopted by the American right. That's what I'm chirping about.

 

I found my self agreeing strangely with your sentiments......but something seem to be wrong with your submission until I realised one simple fact!

You are a stranger to liberal ideals!

Regards
Highlander

 

The foundations of the modern democratic states of Europe and North America were laid by the English revolution of the 17th century and the American and French revolutions of the 18th century. This model was established as the aspiration of the European continent in the 1848 revolutions.

Germany and Japan, it is argued, had democracy imposed by invasion. But a little thought raises some difficulties with these examples. Germany was actually partioned by the allies at the end of the war. Democracy was certainly not restored in East Germany. Its population continued to languish under an authoritarian regime until they took matters into their own hands in 1989. And in West Germany US backed unions and a kind of 'siege democracy' was installed with the express aim, as in post war Italy, of excluding the left from power.

In Japan, the aim of the war was certainly not to impose democracy. The US was perfectly happy to allow the Japanese Emperor to continue ruling undisturbed until the attack in Pearl Harbor. A war and two nuclear bombs later, the aim was to impose a docile regime under US economic and military tutelage. The Japanese Emperor still sits on his throne.. Just as in post-war Iraq today, the aim was to construct a pro-Western social structure open to Western economic penetration with only such democratic rights as are compatible with this fundamental goal.

More frequently the historical record shows that democratic rights, at least outside the core of the system, have not been compatible with this goal. Indeed, as I highlighted previously, the intervention of the major powers has been most frequently used to try and stifle democracy and anti-colonial movements.

Is there anything else I can help you out with?

 

.... US and British support for dictators and authoritarian regimes is part and parcel of the fabric of the historical record. Until the Arab Spring, Mubarek enjoyed lavish US military and economic support despite rigged elections and torture routinely practiced in that country. Oil ensures that the brutal House of Saud is still assiduously courted by the US and other Western powers.

The greatest dictatorship in the world in China is mildly rebuked and enthusiastically embraced as a trading partner because introducing the market is more important to the West than introducing freedom. The dictatorship in Pakistan under the rule of Musharaff was instantly transformed from 'rogue state' to 'ally in the war against terror' because of its mercenary role in the Afghan war.

North Korea is respectfully negotiated with, not because it lacks WMD but precisely because it possesses them, a lesson not lost on other states threatened by the US. Israel is no more a democracy than Apartheid South Africa was. The motivating factor which resulted in Western support for South Korea, Taiwan and the other East Asian 'dynamo economies' was certainly not to forment democracy.

 

Heroclitus, I agree with your points about American conservatives and the totalitarian Left. The following is where we diverge, however.

Interventionism isn't really about morals. It's about strategy and vested interests.

Sometimes, it is most practical to intervene in a conflict, but more often than not, conflicts are better left to settle themselves.

It is true that many people have mistakenly supported Gaddafi. But then again, so did the West in general before we ousted him.

Our intervention hasn't been about morals or any real support for democracy.

The ideologues we've seen here from Russia and certain African countries that defend Gaddafi make the mistake of assuming he's some virtuous leader.

On the other hand, the West has aided in the ousting of a dictator we had just previously normalized relations with. The timing of all of this seems to be less about anyone's freedom and more about removing an inconvenience.

Few people will shed any tears for Gaddafi. He was a tyrant, and in some ways, it's good to see him gone. On the other hand, revolutions often have a tendency to replace the previous tyrant with a new one. Iran is a good example.

It is quite possible that the new government forming in Libya becomes sympathetic to radical Islam. While Gaddafi had his own ties to terror, these rebels may end up supporting even more of it. We won't really know until a few years from now. A lot of people fear the same from Egypt's new government.

Agreed. The irony of the anti-government types is that the same ideology they hate (Marxism) is very anarchistic in its own right. Marx's ideal was entirely different from what Stalin, Lenin, and Mao went on to support. Marx was actually very anti-government as well, although he was also anti-aristocracy. The far right often stops short of opposing private sector collusion if no goverment is involved.

Good points.

Yep, agreed again.

I disagree on this part.

Defending close allies from destruction makes sense. This is why America had to get involved in WW1 and WW2. However, those were more the exception than the rule.

Most of the conflicts that America (and the West in general) have gotten involved in have been unnecessary. There's a big difference between the Vietnam War and the Bosnian War.

The Bosnian War made sense because the conflict was right on Europe's doorstep. The Vietnam War was an internal conflict that was not in our best interests to intervene in. Although China was manipulating the situation, Vietnam was within their sphere of influence and not really relevant to American interests.

Libya is a similar situation. Libya is relevant to certain European interests, but siding with either group during their civil war wasn't necessary. All Europe had to do was wait for the dust to settle and then do business with the victors. Civil Wars are ideally fought in this manner. Granted, plenty of arms deals can be made with one side or the other.

The fight for freedom should be primarily self-determined.

 

This isn't the exclusive domain of the left, SiliconMagician being a prime example. The fringe elites have taken over politics and the American populace is too uneducated be able to think themselves out of this mess, thus they feel they have no choice but to join up with either Bachmann or Pelosi -- two deplorable individuals.

 

Heroclitus wrote - "There is no venemous personal attack. There is only polemic. Have you read Lenin for instance? He is much nastier. I merely derided your view that those who think they are leftist - and wear the che Guevara t shirts - are not, by your standards. It is you keeping the gate to who can be admitted as "left". You are the one appointing yourself as arbiter. I prefer a more catholic view of what is "left" and to critique the different points of view within that large range on their merits."

1/ The sneering reference to “Miniscule Revolutionary” group was personal and offensive. It was a veiled insult but an insult nonetheless and I will defer to your conscience for remedy than prefer to remark in kind.

2/ In my view Leninism was a complete and utter perversion of Marxism - that the moral justification for revolution in Oct 1917 was wasted in the prosecution of it. The discussion opens a “Bucket” of considerations from the corruptions surrounding Kerensky, the enormity of Russia’s losses in WW1, the brutal civil war that followed Oct, Autocracy as a conduit for political, economic and social liberation, the role of Western Powers and their attempt to restore autocratic rule, the scale of counter revolution, the ruthless pursuit of war communism, the rise of Stalin, the emergence of a state that was capable of successfully resisting the Nazis etc etc ad nauseam.

3/ It is not by my “Standards” that a determination of ones political views is made, but by measure against the principle tenets that underpin any ideology. A pig in a stable isn’t a horse!

4/ There is no gate of admission to the left – one commits themselves to and/or subscribes to a particular set of defining principles or they don’t. Ones actions and beliefs are consistent and coherent or they are compromised. The pig in the stable is still not a horse!

5/ I was unaware that there was an evolution of political definitions pivoting on the whims of populism! Much like Catholicism, Marxism has its articles of faith! As I say, a pig in a stable is not a horse whether it’s dressed in a Che Guevara T-Shirt or a pink tutu!..

Heroclitus wrote - Get a thicker skin. Look how people like Hitchens and Chosmky debate with each other. The polemic is often appropriate.

1/ I will ask and expect “No quarter” in challenge but measure with respect the humanity between us. Call it a…dedication to altruism!

2/ ..as it is inappropriate..by what measure does one make an accurate judgement on this point??? I can smell bacon…dinner can’t be long..

On the first half I take my hat off to you. I only wonder if you read the three volumes of Capital in German. Learning is always to be respected.

Heroclitus wrote - As to what is on the Left I wonder why you want to make it such ane exclusive club and this strikes me as sectarian. I prefer to make it clear that I am not a socialist, and support free trade and open markets, but with the State playing a role where markets fail, and with a social contract between the State and the people. For me capitalism is a progressive force and continues to develop the means of production (this would have made it a progressive force for Marx too, ironically).
Those who don't like capitalism are generally known as the Left, though their ideas may differ widely from each other and may have varying degrees of coherence. All leftists are not equal. Some are far more coherent than others.

1/ The lesson of humility (I know it well), forgive me, I have tread clumsily here and you should not doff your hat..let’s just say I am very familiar with the subject matter..

2/ There is no “Exclusive Club” lest you speak of the Polit Bureau…That’s where the real Pig named Napoleon resides..

3/ There is much in Locke and Mill that works for me also…Jefferson wrote beautifully about the need for Government to guarantee social equity in the market place.

4/ For me, Capitalism drives hedonism and motivates self interest and delivers unacceptably negative outcomes across every resource of the human experience…famine, war, slavery, discriminations and inequalities of every conceivable kind and type, perversions and excesses, political disaffection, environmental vandalism, corporate and governmental collusion and corruption on massive scales..there is an endless list of model corruptions and perversions born from the excesses of the market place and motivated by self interest…From the East India Comapny to Enron & Lehmann brothers etc etc ada nauseam..!

5/ I would also argue that Western Democracy is a perversion of the Socratean ideal. That constituent representatives are compromised by the large number of constituent interests they must balance, the frequency of elections that lag behind popular sentiment, that participation is low where compulsory participation doesn’t exist, and where lobbyists and apparatchiks impede and subvert the integrity of the process by unduly influencing policy outcomes..The very umbrella under which the Capitalist “North South System” of economics exists is, in my opinion, fundamentally compromised and flawed..

6/ A complete or partial repudiation of fundamental capitalist principles is a hallmark of many different political, social and religious philosophies. Anti Capitalists can be found across the entire political and religious spectrum and include Communists, Fascists, Anarchists and a host of religious sects. Indeed men like Jefferson, Paine, Smith, Rousaeu all delivered partial repudiations of Free Unfettered Capitalist Markets. Even Paleo-Conservatives join this chorus! To suggest that Fascists, Anarchist or nihilists are of the “Left” is ludicrous.

I don’t have time to take it further but will return from time to time and comment.…interesting posts all round…cheers to you Heroclitus and to all here..

 

Democracy was imposed at the point of a gun in Germany and Japan. That's the point. Not the snotty drivel you regurgitated.

The left was not excluded in Japan. It was welcomed into the political process by the American Occupation as a means of preventing the reemergence of Japanese militarism. The greatest land reformer in Japanese history was General Douglas MacArthur. The left was welcomed, not excluded in Occupied Japan.

 

Like I said, Germany was partisoned...The motivation was not to bring democracy to Germany. And the left was excluded in Japan.

 

The Worker's Movement blossomed 1945-47 in Japan.

 

For a political entity to enjoy peace the partisans must accept the idea of coexistence. Compromise is no longer in the lexicon in this age. It is what it is.

 

I'd rather not define myself as left or right, that's so last century.

I don't support Gaddafi as a person, nor do I condone his brutal acts committed against his own people nor his as OP claims stalinist behaviour, but I'm against NATO intervention, I'm against my government spending millions on bombing missions, bombing cities, killing Gaddafi's men and hundreds of innocent civilians of all ages, all the while back here in Britain, we have income draining tax levels, no social mobility, no adequate manufacturing, not enough jobs for the unskilled, not enough options or opportunities for the unskilled to become skilled in specific fields, and jobs that don't pay enough to cover rent in houses in run down areas, and the energy bills, now with tuition fees, even less opportunities, the poor have become prisoners of the countries financial situation, all the while the government goes around being world police, ramping up the insane amount of debt that the future of the British poor would be born into.

The British government is putting its people last, and their own desires first, they are slowly taking away individual freedoms, successive governments have become more and more Americanised, supporting American government agendas, and I'm completely against this. I'm ashamed that we sent young British men out to Iraq, and now Afghanistan, only for many of them to come back in boxes, not only this but, the children and innocents in Afghanistan get caught in the middle.

If the British government could focus on the British people instead of the worlds problems, then, and only then we can become a country to be respected by the international community once more, a country others desire to be, a country that leads the world in equality, freedom, social mobility, academic prowess, technological advances and the like. We have the NHS, but we're not supporting it, money that could save lives is being put into bombing cities, I'm disgusted by this.

Afghanistan did not attack Britain, Iraq did not attack Britain, Libya did not attack Britain. We should do more to promote secularism instead of bowing down to extreme Islamic propaganda under the guise of not breaking laws of discrimination, Britain has been dominantly Christian, but the masses for religion in the UK are dwindling, surely if we had not such an issue with immigration, if previous governments had not been so rash to import thousands of foreigners in the past then I'm sure today Britain would be leading the world in secularism, and in doing so gives freedoms to explore fields of science far more proficiently, if we were not bombing foreign countries, recruiting tens of thousands of soldiers and the such, and instead pumping that money into the NHS and the such, Britain could be so much better, but it's now rotting.

Britain could show the world, inspire people from all over the world to push for the same goals that improve life for everyone, but instead we show the world how hypocrisy and corruption, greed and power can bring tyranny to any non complying nation, taking away the freedom of that nation to decide its own destiny, is what I believe to be the opposite of free democratic values.

Don't call me left or right, please.

 

Because I am not a sectarian. I think there is brilliance in Marx, as there is in Adam Smith. The Left are nearly right. But fundamentaly they are very wrong. They see the illness with some clarity, but prescribe a medicine which kills the patient. When they realize their error they will come to liberalism. What is needed is equality of opportunity, not outcome.

 

Albert, your overwhelming pessimism has defeated your instinctive liberalism. Why would you surrender to Confucianism? For all that we are called on to recognize the cultural integrity of China, and to eschew imperialist thinking, we have to reject what is essentially a reactionary feudal ideology. Don't be afraid of the xenophobic rebuttal from Chinese nationalists that we are trying to impose "Western" values. We are supporting universal values. It is racist to propose that universal values do not apply to Chinese people.

The incoherence of Chinese society - where Confucianism blended with Leninism has led to a social amoralism - may be nihilistic, but it is too horrible to accommodate. You do have to accommodate a mob in China far too often, when you get on a bus and train and watch the obsession with "me" that Conficianism creates, take control of people. China is ironically one of the least cohesive societies that you can find. There is little respect for law - personal gain is paramount. Confucianism in practice (whatever the analects say) teaches isolationism and a refusal to cooperate or care beyond your immediate family. It innoculates people against empathy. It urges people to think small, as the powerful around them grow rich. It's about dog eat dog. Quite simply, even as a Marxist like Mao would say (and frequently did), it is barbarism. It is only the adoption of liberal capitalism that has led to prosperity. China has no choice but to follow an Enlightenment path, or sink into an abyss, with, apparently, your America.

Accepting this as a reality is no justification for an almost satanic despondency on your part, abandoning hope in the face of such evil. It is strange that you have accepted this reversion to medieval myth as China itself has, for centuries, been condemned to brutality and darkness through its refusal to abandon its feudal mores. Now with nationalism projecting Confucianism anew, as a crude totalitarian effort by the CCP to counter liberal dissent, the Chinese leadership are desperate. There can be no way that an emerging middle class will tolerate the political repression that keeps China's leaders as billionnaires. The dissatisfaction with corruption - rather than a penchant for the Rights of Man - will dislocate the nicely arranged Confucian deference to the Party. Of course it is possible that such a process will be accommodated by a smart emerging generation who will slowly concede political reform to smoothe the way. But China faces the same challenge as the rest of us - liberal democracy and free trade or barbarism.

When you see how Chinese people reject this Confucianism - or modernize it - you see the potential of liberalism. Young people in China want freedom. They want i-phones a bit more maybe, but the time is coming when the sinification of liberalism will come from the Chinese people. Enlightenment values are universal. Chinese people will find and are finding them. Look to the traditions of your country and the optimism of its founders. Oprimism is breaking and will break through feudal values in China.

 

I completely agree with this. We secularists have been fighting against the Christian religion -- in its various, miserable forms -- for the better part of four centuries. Just as we begin making gains with the population at large, we're told that we ought to accept a new, more heinous religion. We must accept and respect a faith that subjugates women, murders daughters and homosexuals, and follows the teachings of a pedophile. Nonsense.


Also, Heroclitus, I am not a conservative. I'm not sure why you are operating under the assumption that I am, despite my saying that I am not.

 

No-one is asking that you accept this faith. What is required is for free countries to tolerate different religions. The USA was founded on the principle of religious toleration, not atheism. People should be free to practice their religion and fair minded people should not slander their religiopn (though of course they have the right to do so).

Islam does not murder its daughters or homosexuals. That is a highly intolerant thing to say. It is inflammatory and I would guess, purposely so. Some extremist islamists (a small minority) do this and those who support them should be denigrated. But one billion muslims do not murder their daughters or homosexuals. Your writing here is a demonization of muslims, which is maybe why I keep mistaking you for a conservative, as it tends to be them who do this sort of thing. Liberal tolerance seems hard to find.

Having said all that I believe islam has reactionary elements within its mainstream. It is homophobic and sexist in its teaching, as is Roman Catholicism and fundamentalist Christianity. This is arguing against religion, not slandering or demonizing it. There is a difference though between christianity and islam, in that St Paul clearly separated the Church from the State and Christians are not bound to change society into a theocratic model (although many still want to). Mainstream islam does work by wanting islam to be the law of the land. This of course must be resisted.

But as many (most) christians manage to accommodate their religion with secular societies, so should islamic moderates. Islam is in need of a Reformation as the relic infested, superstitious and literalist Catholic Church was in the Middle Ages. The best way to do this is not to demonize all muslims, as you have done, as women killers, gaybashers and terrorists, but to show tolerance to those muslims who want to engage with civil society and engage them in dialogue. New generations will emerge in all religions who will find ways to adapt their parents dogma to the realities of the world they live in.

 

I am amazed how isolationists think.

They think, for example, that helping other people is wrong, because "charity begins at home" and our own are more worthy. But then they can't understand either that we are a country that due to our own shortgae of natural resources, needs foreign oil to survive. Of course britain is acting in its own interests - that of all its citizens - when it supports humanitarian goals in a nation that has the capability to repay this with oil.

As to not importing immigrants, I wonder what world they live in. It is fruitless to go into the thousands of arguments as to how immigration, including that of my grandparents, has enriched the british nation. I just ask a simple question: 'whose going to wipe your arse when you get old?". If they can't be arsed to work out that with our changing demographics we absoltely need immigrants - and always have - then there's not much point going on.

As to "bowing down to extreme islamic propaganda" - that's just a lie, isn't it? And not one that generally comes from the Left or the Centre. So I think we know what we have here.

 

It is difficult to know which is worse; that Heroclitus neatly shoots himself in the foot in his opening post demonstrating that this is another thread started by someone who is too lazy to do his own research, thereby condemning himself as just another lazy Conservative mouthpiece; or whether the total hypocrisy of his high minded speech is worse:

AMERICA SUPPORTED GHADDAFI AS WELL AS CHAVEZ! AMERICA SUPPORTED MUBARAK UNTIL HIS INSURRECTION AS WELL!

The CIA were in bed with Ghadaffis intelligence service - they were paid to torture on behalf of America.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/cia-links-to-gaddafi-revealed-20110903-1jrfb.html

American companies worked for Ghaddafis intelligence service:

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/08/wsj_boeing_may_have_helped_gad.php

So there you have it 'cletus, all those right thinking conservative corporate thugs were in Libya working away with old Muammar, as well as Hosni in Egypt.

American conservatives don't give a flying **** about "Freedom" and "Liberty" when there is money to be made. You are all completely amoral hypocrites.

 

No, it isn't. I find all religion in the Western sense repulsive, so this isn't simply limited to Islam. What one can and should tolerate is a moderate; anything beyond that should be shunned. In Islam's case, that means there is much to scorn. That religion's teachings are bigoted and backward in almost every way, even moreso than Christianity's.

At what point does tolerance become absurd? At what point does political correctness finally go by the wayside and accountability and common sense come to the fore? Tell me, Heroclitus, if the Aztec religion were still extant today, would you yet sit behind your keyboard, urging acceptance and oozing sanctimony, as living men's hearts were being ripped out of their bodies and offered to the sky?

Barbarism should not, cannot, be accepted. Savages are savages. White or black, Muslim or Christian, they come in all forms and conform to all creeds, and they should be held in the utmost contempt. Islam (like Christianity) is an anachronism in a modern, secular world.

Aren't you the one who's constantly hammering on about the duty to spread Western values to non-Western countries? The one who urges fascists, and communists, and so forth be confronted and ruined? Tell me, what is so different between a faith and a government? The tangibility of the sovereign -- nothing more, nothing less. Why, then, may evil in one be excused and evil in the other not?

 

Very well written post. I find myself wanting to agree with you but knowing in the back of my mind that you are mistaken.

Enlightenment values are not universal. America was the child of Locke, Rosseau, Montesquieu and a number of other European philosophers. America was fertile ground for a democratic republic enshrining liberal values.

China is barren ground for an alien philosophy. The Chinese people don't seek freedom. They seek prosperity.

I view the CCP as a dynasty. Someday the Party will lose the mandate of heaven. When that happens a new force will arise in China, and a new dynasty will be born.

The greatest danger to CCP rule in China would be an unsuccessful war with America. That's something for the Politburo to think about.