[Peace-discuss] un-binary the binary - organize!

[Ricky Baldwin]

But, John ... 

(and I do think it's a funny kind of argument for activists in particular to have, especially with the Christian arguing that unfortunately "might makes right" and the atheist objecting that justice sometimes prevails ;-)

... aren't you overstating you case, just a bit?

Was Martin Luther King an oppressor?  Gandhi a conqueror?  

Wasn't slavery abolished (mostly) by an international movement of people not necessarily in government or controlling military might, but making ethical arguments - and organizing - over and over, over and over?

Didn't organized labor and the organizations of the unemployed succeed - partially, but substantially - when they raised living standards for millions of workers, achieved safety and health regulations that may be flawed but have nevertheless saved many thousands of lives - and that's documented - got thousands of poor children out of coal mines and into schools?

Didn't rebellious soldiers and peace activists around the world force the US out of Vietnam?  Didn't the resulting "Vietnam Syndrome" scale back US imperialism for decades afterwards, reducing it to the "low intensity warfare" that prevailed until the invasion of Granada and then Panama?  Wasn't that worth it?

Of course we are all aware of the shortcomings of any and all of these efforts, and their results.  Not least of these is that we seem to have to return to these same battlegrounds over and over, of course.  That's because all these movements were run by human beings and not characters in a fable.  So I'd suggest that the question isn't either/or, total victory or total defeat, Armageddon or Ragnarok.

I agree that it's unlikely that a lot of US presidents are about to be hanged, or even tried - for anything serious, anyway.  It's also pretty implausible that we'll manage to elect a president, or a Congress, that ... well, that we'd be satisfied with.

But - apologies to my fellow anarchists - that doesn't mean they're all the same, does it?  Or that there is no justice possible at all.

There are things we can do.  We should do them if we can.  There are contradictions like Chomsky's Nuremburg point that Carl raises, which get people thinking, potentially at least ... some people.  For some, at least they'll know they aren't crazy when they hear someone else say outloud and clearly.  Some may feel the proverbial scales drop from their eyes.  Some may decide, yes, time to organize!

It will need to get out beyond this listserve, of course.

Ricky



"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn

--- On Sun, 7/19/09, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:

From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, "CARL ESTABROOK" <galliher at uiuc.edu>, "KAREN MEDINA" <KMEDINA at illinois.edu>
Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 1:33 AM


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.


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090719/fbbd874d/attachment-0001.html