Liberal Democracy (you love it really)

luka

luka

Well-known member
my sister gave me the transcript of condeleeza rices speech for chatham house. its on the internet here
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/63969.htm

she talks about liberal democracy. here is an extract

'What do I mean by "liberal" democracy? Well, first of all, I mean capital "L" in Liberal, as in Liberalism, the theory of politics that took shape in the minds of Englishmen like Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, and even a Scot or two, like Adam Smith. The ideas of Liberalism were, of course, later refined and applied and written into the American Constitution by men like Hamilton, and Jefferson and Madison. And all of these individuals were trying, in their own way, to solve one of history's oldest quandaries: How can individuals with different interests, and different backgrounds, and different religious beliefs, live together peacefully and avoid the evil extremes of politics: civil war and tyranny, or as they would have said, the state of nature or the oppression of the state?


In their answer to this question, the theorists of Liberalism transformed politics forever. They declared that all human beings possessed equal dignity and certain natural rights -- among these, the right to live in liberty, to enjoy security, to own property and to worship as they pleased. These universal rights, established and embodied in institutions and enshrined in law, would then establish the principled limits on state power. But that was not all. They had another equally bold idea: For government to be truly legitimate, they argued, it had to be blessed by the consent of the governed. '

pretty noble sounding eh? so liberal democracy, just abmit it, you love it really
 
A

ambrose

Well-known member
im not really convinced by the Rights of Man

if they are inviolable, universal, unquestionable, fundamental rights, how come every single one of them are broken every single day on a massive scale.... like, it seems that not everyone got the memo about Human Rights

arent the Rights of Man more like "Stuff that makes society work" rather than some sort of ethical/moral construct?
 
O

owen

Well-known member
historically this is utter pish- the idea that hobbes(hobbes!), locke, adam smith would describe themselves as 'liberal', let alone 'democratic' is empirically the exact inverse of the truth. what was her PhD in again? surely not history of some description?

also- liberalism and democracy, irrespective of their merits, are ideas that essentially come from the french revolution, and from agitators, anarchists and proto-spart types like william godwin, tom paine etc- the very people that the mandarins that condi so bizarrely cites were warning about. also their liberalism and democracy entailed various economic doctrines that i can't imagine being popular in the state department

also bear in mind dr johnson (who was one of those rare tories blessed with the capacity for honesty)on the state created by 'men like hamilton, jefferson and madison' -"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
 
bruno

bruno

est malade
the worldwarfour blog references this interview with michael ledeen of iran-contra fame, and what he says confirms what i asked (in a naïve and confusing way) about ms rice.

in short:

ML: I describe myself as a democratic revolutionary, I don't think of myself as "conservative" at all. Indeed it seems to me that most self-described leftists today are reactionaries, and have lost the right to describe themselves as people of the left.

this from a man of the AEI! so it's confirmed, a significant portion of the right has effectively occupied the vacant space of the left.

the sad thing is that, with identity blurred this way, 'true' leftists seem to be returning to ideas that were supposed to have been scrapped with the fall of real communism. it's good to remember authoritarian and anti-democratic are things the left does very well, too.
 
O

owen

Well-known member
c'mon, this is just further dissembling. someone involved with the contras has no right whatsoever to describe themselves as either liberal or democratic.
another thing, that book that you link to is extremely dubious- the conflation of eg the vietnamese and cambodian communists is sheer propagandism with zero historical basis. seamus milne attacks many of its suppositions here- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1710891,00.html
 
bruno

bruno

est malade
owen said:
another thing, that book that you link to is extremely dubious
Click to expand...
no it's not. it's clearly well researched and puts forth its case lucidly. and at 900 pages it's curious that you dismiss it this casually, have you bothered to read it?
 
O

owen

Well-known member
book length=research and quality, interesting thesis.

no, i admit not to having read its 900 pages. but large swathes of the left have always been against stalinism, maoism and its derivatives. the tendency to conflate them with say, the sandinistas, ho chi minh, tito's yugoslavia, allende's regime in chile, or the traditions of trotskyism, council communism, syndicalism and western marxism i do tend to find somewhat offensive.

similarly, i am quick to dismiss anything that treats 'communism' as it was variously practiced between 1917 and 1989 as entirely homogenous, of childish 'your regime killed more than my regime' point-scoring, and more particularly the use of deaths from famine to make up these statistics; by which token capitalism wins this 'game' fairly comprehensively.
 
Last edited:
bruno

bruno

est malade
owen said:
book length=research and quality, interesting thesis.

no, i admit not to having read its 900 pages. but large swathes of the left have always been against stalinism, maoism and its derivatives. the tendency to conflate them with say, the sandinistas, ho chi minh, tito's yugoslavia, allende's regime in chile, or the traditions of trotskyism, council communism, syndicalism and western marxism i do tend to find somewhat offensive.

similarly, i am quick to dismiss anything that treats 'communism' as it was variously practiced between 1917 and 1989 as entirely homogenous, of childish 'your regime killed more than my regime' point-scoring, and more particularly the use of deaths from famine to make up these statistics; by which token capitalism wins this 'game' fairly comprehensively.
Click to expand...
right, sorry for the delay.

i don't think it does conflate 'democratic' communism with the pol pots, stalins (though communist artists repeatedly glorified dictatorships such as east germany, wrote odes to stalin, etc, but that's another story). nor does the book try to point-score with capitalism, that temptation is in fact rejected repeatedly throughout the essays. what binds the whole thing together is an attempt by a group of people to piece together the darker (and up to that point more elusive in terms of official documentation) aspects of individual regimes. the book never makes a claim to being a definitive, all-encompassing view of communism. the only part of the book that comes close to equating communism to crime is the courtois preface, which i believe was rejected later on by some of the contributors to the book.
 
Last edited:
bruno

bruno

est malade
by the way, i was born in east germany because of the allende coup. so in a way i owe my life to erich honecker, and by extension to communism. anyway, ties between repressive regimes and socialists/communists in democratic countries were very firm. and a lot of democratic communists, including my parents, chose not see the reality of what went on in these model states and shifted the blame of all communist woes on stalin and other obvious criminals. luckily my parents had the chance to live in a communist state. would you be surprised that within a year or two they were desperate to leave (and it wasn't easy to do, least of all for native germans, who were essentially captive in their own country).
 
Last edited:
bruno

bruno

est malade
owen said:
i am quick to dismiss anything that treats 'communism' as it was variously practiced between 1917 and 1989 as entirely homogenous
Click to expand...
then why do you do so with capitalism?
 
O

owen

Well-known member
i was suggesting that following their logic, one could make a similar assessment of capitalism's brutalities. naturally one can critique US capitalism without necessarily roping in, say, scandinavian forms of capitalism (though a case could be made (though not at 3am!) that capitalism's very essence is that everything is connected)

by the same token one can talk about chilean communism without the concommitant statement of support for the stasi.

incidentally
ties between repressive regimes and socialists/communists in democratic countries were very firm
depends on yr 'socialists/communists', does it not? for instance, find me a trot party with a tie to a stalinist regime, or social democrats with a thing for locking up dissidents. yr point though on 'blaming woes on stalin or other obvious criminals' is cogent- an analysis of china in the 60s or the USSR in the 30s in these terms would obviously not be marxist.
 
bruno

bruno

est malade
owen said:
depends on yr 'socialists/communists', does it not?
Click to expand...
true, and chilean communists are a case in point in that they were moderates compared to the socialists.. but as always it's who you go to bed with, and during the cold war there were only two beds to choose from, roughly speaking. and it is a bit late, i agree!
 
Last edited:
C

corneilius

Well-known member
democracy schemocracy!

The various forms of democracy discussed by the professional elites, and others who dominate the democratic process worldwide are a series of intellectual smoke screens.

The core reality is that when a people can grow their own food, and build their own shelter, they do no need much more. That is why all the indigenous peoples were and continue to be annihillated - because they prove conclusively that human beings do NOT NEED Government or Industry or 'Civilisation' to live good wholesome lives.

Of course, it is inconcievable to anyone brought up in the 'democratic' or otherwise westernised world to consider the relative joy of indigenous peoples in contrast to the relative neurosis of their own lives and communities. The insecure ego state we all inhabit will deny the truth.

Sad but true, unless of course we begin to acknowledge these truths and make changes.

Discussions, discussions, discussions ......

Intellectual meanderings, entertaining and comforting to the insecure, and utimately useless. What is required is mass honesty. Nothing less.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Liberal with a Capital L

someone involved with the contras has no right whatsoever to describe themselves as either liberal or democratic

Oh Owen, come now! That's rather narrow minded!
 
D

droid

Guest
oliver craner said:
someone involved with the contras has no right whatsoever to describe themselves as either liberal or democratic

Oh Owen, come now! That's rather narrow minded!
Click to expand...

Really? How would you characterise the Contras? A popular force fighting for the people and the "moral equivalent of the founding fathers" ala Reagan's infamous quote?
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
No, not at all.

As a point of order, though, Michael Ledeen wasn't involved with the Contras in any way, form, or manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top