[Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>I'm surprised to hear you argue that there's no difference between a
fascist
>dictatorship and a liberal democracy. I though only hard-core radicals said
>that. It's ridiculous.

Depending on how one defines one's terms, in theory, there may be a
difference or differences; but in practice, show me one liberal democracy
that exists or ever has existed.  They have all tended toward elitism of one
form or another, toward some type of dictatorship of a special group over
the others- be it bureaucrats, elected representatives, business or trade
interests, workers and labor interests, the educated, the well born, etc.),
and toward promoting, sustaining, and maintaining some established value
system as the socially sanctioned, culturally dominant and politically
correct one. In the real world, the differences all boil down to a matter of
degree and not a matter of kind.

>It's at least as ridiculous to think that we can't imagine a better polity
(and
>economy) than we have now.  

It is just as ridiculous to assume that one persons imagining is the exact
same or even similar to another's or that your view of the better polity
would be mine or anyone else's.  The real question is if it is ridiculous to
image a better polity than we have now without also imagining a realistic
and effective way to achieve it as well and be willing to give up everything
to bring about its implementation.  Otherwise, all one is doing is engaging
in an exercise in mental masturbation.

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
Estabrook
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 2:42 PM
To: John W.
Cc: Peace-discuss List; Karen Medina
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war

I'm surprised to hear you argue that there's no difference between a fascist
dictatorship and a liberal democracy. I though only hard-core radicals said
that. It's ridiculous.

It's at least as ridiculous to think that we can't imagine a better polity
(and
economy) than we have now.  It's difficult to get there, of course.

John W. wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:kmedina67 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> wake me up when one of you figures out a better system of
> government, in
>> terms of your ONE stupid binary criterion of war/not war.
> 
> This does bring up an interesting question. I don't think that the type of

> government has much to do with whether a country will go to war.
> 
> 
> You're correct; type of government has nothing at all to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> What does make a difference?
> 
> I suppose smaller, less powerful countries tend not to declare war on
their 
> big, powerful neighbors [there are notable exceptions to this rule]. But
in 
> order to have small countries, large powerful countries would also need to

> exist and the big powerful countries would be tempted to create empires.
> 
> 
> That's right.  But I was not speaking only of one country against another,
as
>  we traditionally define countries.  In many countries, perhaps especially
> the smaller ones, two or more groups of people fight and kill one another
> over power.  In our own nation, gangs fight and kill one another over
> "territory", etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that a country made up entirely of Quakers and Mennonites would
not
>  start a war. But I don't think religion is a good way to separate people
> into countries. [Though I have noticed that Mormon children consistently
> share their toys the most readily of all the children I have observed.]
> 
> I suppose that if all the countries were on equal footing with regards to 
> resources and access to the basic needs, then there would be less
temptation 
> to go to war.
> 
> 
> Less, perhaps, but far from zero.  Remember, most of the wars are started
by 
> the leaders of the wealthier, more powerful countries who want to be even 
> MORE wealthy and powerful.  Greed has no limit, and it is inherent in
human 
> nature.  Perhaps less so in the Quakers and Mennonites.  ;-)  And of
course 
> in AWARE members.  ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> I think that every 7 years, everything needs to be re-distributed equally.
> 
> 
> It would be lovely, but it would do very little to end war.  And who is
going
>  to supervise the redistribution?
> 
> 
> 
> -karen medina
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________ 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