[Peace-discuss] War and peace again

Tue Jul 17 07:39:32 CDT 2007

When polled on specific issues -- jobs, health care, eduction, etc. -- 
as opposed to politicians and parties, a considerable majority of 
Americans are more or less in favor of New Deal-style liberalism, which 
was essentially social democracy.  That's remarkable, since most 
Americans today have never heard any politician advocating that position.

Now I don't think New Deal liberalism is the end of the road, by any 
means. But its achievements, which are the result of a lot of popular 
struggle, are worth defending and expanding.

(That's from Chomsky.) --CGE

Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Folks,
>  
> Let's remember that some labels are political while others are economic.
>  
> Social democracy sounds great to me (and no, I won't hold my breath for 
> its happening here anytime soon. Worth working for, however.) 
>  
> Free-market/ capitalist democracy is an oxymoron.
>  
> Jenifer
> 
> */"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     Hostility to democracy has been commonplace in American politics, from
>     the Founding Father's assertion that "those who own the country
>     ought to
>     govern it," to the open contempt for democracy shown by the Neocons.
>     But such hostility is rarely asserted as an ideal, especially by those
>     presumed to be opposed to war and racism. People are usually
>     embarrassed
>     about being opposed to democracy.
> 
>     The central assertion of the Enlightenment was that freedom was an
>     essential component of human nature. "I have sworn upon the altar of
>     God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of
>     man," said Jefferson. Some authority may be justified, of course -- I
>     am right to assert my authority over my four-year-old to prevent her
>     running into the street. But authority doesn't exist by right -- it
>     needs to justify itself.
> 
>     It is the task of democracy to establish justified authority. For
>     example, there are those in the community who act against the
>     freedom of
>     others, occasionally with violence, and they need to be stopped and
>     stopped quickly, and violence may be necessary to do it. A democracy
>     will need a police force -- but it should be under democratic control.
> 
>     But authoritarianism (unjustified authority) is a civic vice, while
>     democracy is a virtue. It's a perversion of Aristotelian moral theory
>     to see political virtue as a mean between authoritarianism (a vice) and
>     democracy (a virtue). (It also produces an infinite regress, sort of
>     Hegel in reverse.) Aristotle thought that virtue declined in two
>     directions to vice, one of excess and the other of deficiency (e.g.,
>     courage is opposed to foolhardiness as well as to cowardice). Thus
>     civic virtue (social order) lies between the vices of excessive law
>     (authoritarianism) and lawlessness (anarchy).
> 
>     We do not say that political virtue is a balance between violence and
>     peace. Peace is the ideal, even though (justified) violence may
>     sometimes be necessary for its attainment. Democracy is the ideal, even
>     though (justified) authority may be necessary for its attainment.
>     (Hence the right of revolution.)
> 
>     What Aristotle actually said about democracy was that it would
>     necessarily be undermined and destroyed by authoritarianism in a
>     situation of inequality. Inequality and democracy are contradictory,
>     Aristotle thought, so you had to restrict one or the other. The US
>     founding fathers, who were well educated in the classics, understood
>     the
>     problem -- and chose to limit democracy, not inequality. Madison wrote
>     that the Constitution was designed "to protect the minority of the
>     opulent against the majority" -- i.e., it was set up to restrict the
>     democratic impulses of Americans (e.g., Shays' Rebellion, 1786) so that
>     the rich wouldn't be threatened with redistribution of their wealth.
> 
>     The political spectrum does not run from authority to democracy, but
>     from authoritarianism (on the Right) to democracy (on the Left).
>     Anarchism -- a political theory to be sharply distinguished from the
>     state of anarchy, although the distinction is often and purposely
>     confused -- is at the far Left end. Anarchism doesn't mean no rules,
>     just no rulers. An anarchist society -- a free association of
>     workers/producers (which is what human beings are) -- would necessarily
>     be a highly organized society. There would have to be a good deal of
>     democratic authority, but no authoritarianism.
> 
>     Oscar Wilde once said, "Socialism is a good idea, but it would take too
>     many evenings." All anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists
>     are anarchists. The 20th century acquainted us with the phenomenon of
>     authoritarian socialism -- right-wing socialism -- but affords few
>     examples of the non-authoritarian sort.
> 
>     Lenin of course recognized the phenomenon in his 1920 book "Left-Wing
>     Communism -- An Infantile Disorder." He was against it. Authoritarians
>     are opposed to democracy.
> 
>     --CGE
> 
>     illyes at uiuc.edu wrote:
>      > The problem with accepting a consistent usage of left and right, as
>      > Carl proposes, is that this is not a line but a circle. Pure
>      > democracy and authoritarianism are very close, not opposites. The
>      > first devolves reliably into the second. Pure democracy, I claim, is
>      > not a good idea.
>      >
>      > There is an inherent conflict between self-interest and altruism that
>      > we all live every day. It is a part of what it is to be human. This
>      > conflict has to be a part of any valid political science, because
>      > political science must respect what it is to be human.
>      >
>      > I can't give you an exact quote without spending half an hour digging
>      > through Bertrand Russell's writings, but this is pretty close: "When
>      > I was a young man, I found the idea of the golden mean boring. When I
>      > became older, I realized that the truth was not always interesting."
>      >
>      > For those of you who do not know what this means, Aristotle
>      > proposed that moral behavior consists of avoiding extremes. In the
>      > case I bring up, this would mean that neither a society based on pure
>      > altruism nor pure self-interest is moral, but that something in the
>      > middle was. This is not a comfortable concept, but I think it is
>      > correct.
>      >
>      > Bob _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
>      > mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>      > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>     _______________________________________________
>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car 
> Finder tool. 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48518/*http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/;_ylc=X3oDMTE3NWsyMDd2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDY2FyLWZpbmRlcg-- 
>  >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss