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

[C. G. Estabrook]

Also in the real world are those not willing to kiss the hem of Pilate's garment
as he dispenses that justice.


John W. wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:24 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>] Sent: Saturday,
> July 18, 2009 10:17 PM To: LAURIE SOLOMON Cc: 
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto: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.
> 
>