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

[C. G. Estabrook]

The existence of an elite does not make a liberal democracy not to be one; in 
fact it may be necessary. (On the concept, see e.g. Francis Fukuyama, "The End 
of History and the Last Man" [1992] -- altho' I'm not recommending Fukuyama's 
particular argument.)

 From the Greeks to the suppression of political discourse by PR in contemporary 
America, political philosophy -- on means and ends -- was always a group 
enterprise.  That's what "political" means.

The late Australian social scientist Alex Carey wrote, "The 20th century has 
been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The 
growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate 
propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."


LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> 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
> 
>