Occupying the Moral High Ground

[elgato]

i understand that things got heated and discussion went out of context, i just wanted to point that out

If we take socialism to be collective ownership of the means of production (and the end capitalist institutions like the market, money, individual wealth and so on), this can only be acheived by a system of control - i.e. a top down enforcement of socialist laws.

this is the thing - i wouldnt accept that definition of socialism. perhaps i am wrong in the way i view it, but it that not communism? socialism taken to its extreme. i see 'socialism' as merely the concept of some degree (less or more) of centralised control over the socio-economic system, not necessarily complete control.

I basically see the really important political disticntions as being between the forces of liberal democracy and the forces of illiberal tyranny. Ok, so I might have gone on about the growth of totalitarian political movements from the broad socialist movement of the time, but I think it's not an unreasonable argument to make, and to be honest I was getting a bit sick of being told I was a right-wing nutjob by all and sundry. It's not that simple. The greatest enemy of liberty in the last century was Communism (shades of which appeared all over the shop, not just in the USSR).

i think its a mistake to necessarily equate liberal democracy with free markets, and illiberal tyranny with socialism. i think that illiberal tyranny can very easily result, and has indeed resulted many times previous, from unrestrained capitalism. not to mention non-human impacts. and as you point out in that quote, a great deal of protection for liberty and democracy has been secured by those with socialist ideals

 

[vimothy]

Front Front Page:
"Naturally, I accept that being surrounded by a bunch of post-modern theorists is enough to drive the most level-headed men and women quite mad..."
Pfffft!

Mr Tea, have you read Johann Hari's review of Zizek!, the recent documentary about the world's most famous pomo critic? It's spot on stuff:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200704300031

Asked by an audience member what his idea of a good social order is, he replies: "Communism! I am absolutely in favour of egalitarianism with a taste of terror."

 

[Mr. Tea]

i think its a mistake to necessarily equate liberal democracy with free markets, and illiberal tyranny with socialism. i think that illiberal tyranny can very easily result, and has indeed resulted many times previous, from unrestrained capitalism...

Quite. Um, slavery, anyone?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Asked by an audience member what his idea of a good social order is, he replies: "Communism! I am absolutely in favour of egalitarianism with a taste of terror."

"You know, the democrats in 1925 accused Mussolini: 'You want to rule Italy, but you don't have any programme.' You know what was his answer? 'We do have a programme: our programme is to rule Italy at any price.' I love Mussolini."

Ahahaha. Oh dear. What an absolute fucking prick.

 

[vimothy]

i understand that things got heated and discussion went out of context, i just wanted to point that out

No worries,

this is the thing - i wouldnt accept that definition of socialism. perhaps i am wrong in the way i view it, but it that not communism? socialism taken to its extreme. i see 'socialism' as merely the concept of some degree (less or more) of centralised control over the socio-economic system, not necessarily complete control.

Well, I was drawing attention to this, in my own way. Contemporary socialism has broken with its own past, because of the well documented redundancy of the command economy and common ownership of the means of production. In its most energetic phase, however, socialism (not social democracy) was in favour of seizing the means of production. Of course, that was Marx's influence, and Marx's influence has waned considerably in the last few decades.

i think its a mistake to necessarily equate liberal democracy with free markets, and illiberal tyranny with socialism. i think that illiberal tyranny can very easily result, and has indeed resulted many times previous, from unrestrained capitalism. not to mention non-human impacts. and as you point out in that quote, a great deal of protection for liberty and democracy has been secured by those with socialist ideals

It's up to you how you define these (rather subjective) terms. I also equate socialism with market controls, but does that make Blair a socialist? Does it make Keynes a socialist? What is the difference between socialism and mercantilism?

Also, as I said previously, this disjuncture (from common ownership to market intervention) was first made by Mussolini all those years ago.

When has illiberal tyranny resulted from unrestrained capitalism?

 

[Mr. Tea]

When has illiberal tyranny resulted from unrestrained capitalism?

See my second-to-last post.

(Or were the owners of sugar plantations in 18th-century Jamaica not 'proper' capitalists, just as Stalin and Mao weren't 'proper' socialists/Communists?)

 

[vimothy]

Quite. Um, slavery, anyone?

Which is true, but slavery was practiced by plenty of pre- and/or non-capitalist societies and it was in the capitalist world that slavery was abolished first (actually it was abolished first where industrial capitalism was developed first: Britain).

 

[Mr. Tea]

Which is true, but slavery was practiced by plenty of pre- and/or non-capitalist societies and it was in the capitalist world that slavery was abolished first (actually it was abolished first where industrial capitalism was developed first: Britain).

That's true, but capitalists made use of slavery for a very long time, and on a scale greater than ever before, didn't they?
Sure, it was the liberal movement in Britain and elsewhere that led to the abolition of the practice - this was of course before anything approaching a coherent socialist movement existed - but surely this happened despite capitalism, not because of it?
Not to mention the fact that effective slavery - small kids doing back-breadking labour in awful conditions to make just enough money to survive, that sort of thing - continued in Britain itself well into the 19th century. And that just about every piece of legislation to oppose that, in the form of laws protecting workers' rights, has been brought in either under pressure from trade unions or by Labour governments, hasn't it?

 

[vimothy]

That's true, but capitalists made use of slavery for a very long time, and on a scale greater than ever before, didn't they?
Sure, it was the liberal movement in Britain and elsewhere that led to the abolition of the practice - this was of course before anything approaching a coherent socialist movement existed - but surely this happened despite capitalism, not because of it?

It was the philosophy of liberalism which argued first for the abolishment of slavery, realising its bankruptcy and incompatability with liberal demoracy. And it was industrial capitalism that created the conditions that enabled the abolishion of slavery.

Not to mention the fact that effective slavery - small kids doing back-breadking labour in awful conditions to make just enough money to survive, that sort of thing - continued in Britain itself well into the 19th century. And that just about every piece of legislation to oppose that, in the form of laws protecting workers' rights, has been brought in either under pressure from trade unions or by Labour governments, hasn't it?

Again, this was ever true. The difference is that as we aquired more wealth we also aquired rising expectations and increased resources, leading us to make different choices for our children. The same trajectory is being played out at present in China and India.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Again, this was ever true. The difference is that as we aquired more wealth we also aquired rising expectations and increased resources, leading us to make different choices for our children. The same trajectory is being played out at present in China and India.

Well yes, I guess so. The sooner this happens in developing countries, the better, obviously.
Of course, 'rising expectations and increased resources' carry hazards of their own, not least of the environmental nature...

 

[vimothy]

Well yes, I guess so. The sooner this happens in developing countries, the better, obviously.
Of course, 'rising expectations and increased resources' carry hazards of their own, not least of the environmental nature...

And equally, as these countries continue down the path of globalisation, securing a good standard of wealth and development, they will devote more time and effort to solve their environmental problems (China again a good example of this). It's what happened here.

 

[Mr. Tea]

You seem pretty optimistic about the future and China's role in it.
Do you think democracy will happen there sort of spontaneously or suddenly? Because it certainly didn't over here; there was a gradual evolution from absolute monarchy to today's universal suffrage over a period of hundreds of years.

 

[vimothy]

You seem pretty optimistic about the future and China's role in it.
Do you think democracy will happen there sort of spontaneously or suddenly? Because it certainly didn't over here; there was a gradual evolution from absolute monarchy to today's universal suffrage over a period of hundreds of years.

Think that it will definitely happen, but it will be gradual. China will be the most important power after America in the (not too distant) future. Democracy is the ultimate end result if it really does desire this destiny (I think it does), because increasing interconnectivity with the outside world will encourage reappraisal of its political system from the perspective of its citizens, and because the effective performance of its markets will demand it.

 

[vimothy]

Just think for instance of all the many Chinese students currently studying in HE institutions in the west and enjoying western cultural freedoms, going back home to take up positions of power or roles in the business or technological elite...

 

[Mr. Tea]

Hmm, that's a good point. Guess it's bound to happen sooner or later.

 

[ifp]

wasn't slavery first abolished in haiti after a revolt?

british traders still made a ton of money from the slave trade even after it was officially banned by trading with cuba brazil and the states.

 

[vimothy]

Anyone else see this?

Before you rush to condemn Iraqis who feel ill disposed towards the interpreters, ask yourself a simple question: how would you view fellow Britons who worked for the forces of a foreign occupier, if Britain were ever invaded? History tells us that down through history, Quislings have - surprise, surprise - not been well received, and the Iraqi people's animosity towards those who collaborated with US and British forces is only to be expected.

Those who cheered on a brutal, murderous assault on a third-world country that was always going to result in mass loss of life would now like us to believe they are concerned over the fate of 91 people. But what I suspect worries the pro-war brigade most is not the future of the interpreters but that future military "interventions" may be jeopardised unless Britain promises citizenship rights to locals who collaborate.

"Let's not overlook a practical military issue here: who will ever work for the British army in a war zone if they know that later they will be tossed aside like a spent cartridge?" asks Adam Lebor.

There is a simple answer to that "practical military issue": let's do all we can to keep the British army out of war zones. And in the meantime, let's do all we can to keep self-centred mercenaries who betrayed their fellow countrymen and women for financial gain out of Britain.

If that means some of them may lose their lives, then the responsibility lies with those who planned and supported this wicked, deceitful and catastrophic war, and not those of us who tried all we could to stop it.​

Wa-hey!

 

[crackerjack]

Anyone else see this?

Before you rush to condemn Iraqis who feel ill disposed towards the interpreters, ask yourself a simple question: how would you view fellow Britons who worked for the forces of a foreign occupier, if Britain were ever invaded? History tells us that down through history, Quislings have - surprise, surprise - not been well received, and the Iraqi people's animosity towards those who collaborated with US and British forces is only to be expected.

Those who cheered on a brutal, murderous assault on a third-world country that was always going to result in mass loss of life would now like us to believe they are concerned over the fate of 91 people. But what I suspect worries the pro-war brigade most is not the future of the interpreters but that future military "interventions" may be jeopardised unless Britain promises citizenship rights to locals who collaborate.

"Let's not overlook a practical military issue here: who will ever work for the British army in a war zone if they know that later they will be tossed aside like a spent cartridge?" asks Adam Lebor.

There is a simple answer to that "practical military issue": let's do all we can to keep the British army out of war zones. And in the meantime, let's do all we can to keep self-centred mercenaries who betrayed their fellow countrymen and women for financial gain out of Britain.

If that means some of them may lose their lives, then the responsibility lies with those who planned and supported this wicked, deceitful and catastrophic war, and not those of us who tried all we could to stop it.​

Wa-hey!

That was a while back and tbf Neil Clark got absolutely fucking coated for it in the comments below - half of them had to be removed (including my own), because they were just people turning up to call him a cunt. I trust you're not implying the column was in any represntative of The Guardian's own policy...

 

[Mr. Tea]

I hate to make a partisan point out of this: but when people say "look how fvcked parts of the far Left are", they're talking about you.

Indeed. Posted by 'davidTHarry' - is this our own dHarry, by any chance?

 

[Gavin]

Looking at the rhetoric, it's the same kind of logic the other side uses -- if Iraqis wanted to be safe, they'd stop supporting "militants" (as if there's two sides, citizens and militants), snitch on their families, smile at the occupiers, etc. Otherwise they're asking to get caught in the crossfire or locked up in Abu Ghraib -- you deserve it -- and once again your fate is completely determined by your own choices. Coming from "left" or "right" this kind of argument isn't very compelling as an explanation about how people DO make choices in the midst of war and violent chaos, nor is it very compassionate towards human life. But should we be surprised that the sanctioned sides of the debate have absorbed the same kind of daft nihilism?