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

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war

> The existence of an elite does not make a liberal democracy not to be one

While I have not kept up with the current writings in political philosophy,
back in the day when I was a political science and sociology student in both
undergrad and graduate school, I had political theory and philosophy as one
of my field of specialization.  From what I remember from those days, the
concept of liberalism as found in English political philosophy had main
grounding in Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and James Mills (the father of
J.S. Mills), which itself had some derivation from Thomas Hobbes.  It placed
emphasis on the individual with the collective being governed on the basis
of a summing up of pleasure versus pain values of all the individuals where
all pleasures and all pains had the same equal value in the equation (push
pen is as good as poetry in terms of its value) and the taking of state
action in accordance with the principle that the state should act in a way
that will give the most pleasure to the most individuals and cause the least
pain to most individuals.  This was not an elitist philosophy per se and did
not say any one group was better or their interests were worth more than any
other.  

The notion of democracy, the notion of liberty or freedom, had several
different traditions and meaning in political philosophy - not just one.
The tradition that place emphasis on an individualistic idea of "one man,
one vote" or all citizens were to be equal participants in governmental
decision-making and policy formation, while typically restricted to those
who under the cultural definitions of the time were deemed to be "men" or
"citizens" with everyone else being excluded, presumed that government would
as a result act in the interest of the majority of the 'citizens."  Then
came representative democracy where representative were selected on the
basis of one citizen one vote with the majority or plurality of the votes
determining who would officially represent the interests of the voters and
act in their behalf.  Theoretically, this was not an elitist philosophy
either once one accepted that the group defined as citizens were the
universe that the notion of democracy applied to and not to the general
population as a whole.

The point is as I said it all comes down to depending on how you define
terms.  However, if the existence of an elite does not make a liberal
democracy not a democracy as you suggest, then I fail to see any difference
between fascist dictatorships and liberal democracy except the necessity
under a fascist dictatorship to have corporations, which did not exist to
any extent before middle and late industrial period of human history.
Without the notion of corporations the comparison becomes one of a
dictatorship versus a democracy where it boils down to the rule of the many
versus the rule of the few.  Therefore, if - in empirical reality and
practice - the existence of an elite does not nullify the existence of a
democracy, then the notion of democracy in the traditional Greek sense and
the English Liberal sense becomes meaningless.  

> 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.

As far as I am concern, the above is a non-sequitor and not very clear a
statement at that.  Are you saying that political philosophy was or has been
always a group enterprise; or are you saying that political philosophies on
the means and ends of the State have always focused on the purposes of the
State which was viewed as a group enterprise?  Even if you are suggesting
the latter, there have been both individualistic and collectivistic notions
of what the goals, purposes, and ends of the State as a group enterprise
should be and individual based and collectivist based views of the means to
achieve the goals, purposes, and ends of the State as a group enterprise
(i.e., a socio-cultural and economic community). This is one of the features
that differentiates Anglo-American (and Greek and pre-industrial revolution
English and European political discourse) from European political discourse
after the industrial revolution. By the way that is also what "social" and
"cultural" also mean - a group enterprise.  Again depending on how one
defines terms and cuts the pie, the specifics of what "political," "social,"
and "cultural" refers to varies as does the referents for "polity,"
"economy," "society," and "community."  However, I fail to see how this
relates to the topic in question since we are discussing collectivities and
not individuals.

>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."


As for Carey's statements, corporate power can be read to stand for elite
and democracy can be read as standing for the masses.  In which case,
elitism is not compatible with democracy in the sense that control over
government decision-making and policy by an elite and for the elite is not
compatible with control over governmental decision making and policy by and
for the masses.  If he means for these terms to stand for something else,
then I have no idea what he is talking about or what he was stating.

-----Original Message-----
From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 5:53 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'John W.'; 'Peace-discuss List'; 'Karen Medina'
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war

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
> 
>