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

[C. G. Estabrook]

But in the real world, if the Nuremberg principles -- on the basis of which we
executed nazi leaders after WWII -- had been applied consistently, all
subsequent US presidents would have been hanged.


LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> Capitalism (understood as corporate power) and democracy are indeed 
>> contradictories.  The latter has one person/one vote as an ideal; the
>> former says your influence in society depends on the number of "dollar
>> votes" you control.
> 
> That is not how traditional capitalism is understood (corporations did not 
> exist when capitalism as a theoretical concept and idea originated); nor does
>  capitalism in economic theory define capitalism as "corporate power" even 
> after the advent of corporate capitalism.  What you are putting forth is 
> revisionist ideologically based theory here.
> 
> While it may be true that in practice  capitalism may very well equate 
> influence in society with the number of dollars you control; but that is not
>  part of the theory of Capitalism.  Furthermore, even your assertion that 
> capitalism says "your influence in society depends on the number of 'dollar 
> votes' you control" does not imply or necessarily a notion of corporate 
> power; it could equally apply to non-corporate organizations and entities. 
> Hence, your assertion contradicts your understanding of capitalism as being 
> corporate power or even corporate based.
> 
> I do accept that with the rise of large corporate entities in the business 
> sphere of society and their dominance as actors in the economy we have 
> experienced a change in capitalism from sole proprietary capitalism to 
> corporate capitalism in practice, which has resulted in a revision of 
> capitalist theory and practice while maintain the myth that it is the same as
>  capitalism of old and as set for by traditional capitalist theory.  But it 
> probably is not inconsistent with the notion and practice corporate democracy
>  (which some would call fascism in theory).  Namely, fascism being that 
> corporate entities not people are the actors or citizens of the democracy. 
> The corporate actors may let individuals go through the ritualized symbolic 
> act of voting and think that they are participating in the decision-making 
> and policy formation while they vote with their economic resources in terms 
> of manipulating the masses and controlling the candidates in those elections 
> as well as with their ability to define the range and scope of alternatives 
> that are considered by the government and its agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> And a liberal society (even the utilitarian form you sketch) need not be
>> very democratic to qualify as liberal.
> 
> I agree that a liberal society of any form need not be a democratic (in any 
> philosophical tradition) society.  It was you who connected the two in your 
> post.  I merely noted that the traditional English liberal tradition within 
> political philosophy has a basis and grounding in individualism, equality of
>  interests, and a common societal being defined as that which produces the 
> greatest good for the greatest number of individuals based on a calculus of 
> their individual combined pleasures and pains wherein each individual is 
> treated as being of equal value.  I further noted that said philosophy was 
> compatible with a given tradition of theory on the notion of democracy in 
> political philosophy. Ironically, if accepts the collectivist concept of 
> democracy (i.e., such as one that employs Edmund Burke's notion of "virtual 
> representation" or some similar formation or such as one which holds that the
>  State exists with the consent of the citizenry and government reach
> decisions and take actions to achieve or further the common good of the
> collective as an entity not the individuals as entities), then democracy
> cannot really qualify as being liberal in the English tradition of
> liberalism.
> 
> But back to John's original complaint about constructing lists where all the
>  items on the list comprise all the items in the universe being considered.
> If one says all Presidents are on a given list as having a given set of 
> properties and not others where none of the Presidents are excluded from the
>  list, then the list tells us nothing about the universe except that it is 
> different from some other universes made up of a different set of 
> non-comparable items - such as comparing a list of U.S. Presidents against a
>  list of Catholic Popes or the leadership of other countries where some or
> all on the alternative lists do not have those qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook 
> [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:17 PM To: 
> LAURIE SOLOMON Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; KAREN MEDINA; CARL 
> ESTABROOK Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war
> 
> Capitalism (understood as corporate power) and democracy are indeed 
> contradictories.  The latter has one person/one vote as an ideal; the former
> says your influence in society depends on the number of "dollar votes" you 
> control.
> 
> And a liberal society (even the utilitarian form you sketch) need not be very
> democratic to qualify as liberal.