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

[John W.]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:24 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

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.


In the REAL world, Carl, it is always the winners - the victors, the
conquerors, the oppressors - who decide which principles of "justice" will
be applied, and to whom.  "Might makes right" is the ultimate "rule of
law".  Didn't I say that just a few days ago?




> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090719/46c3bc46/attachment.html