Occupying the Moral High Ground

[vimothy]

What definition of "democracy" is being used here? Particularly with regards vimothy's assertion that the MNF is "giving" democracy to a region that previously only had "bombs flying out of it" (or whatever horribly racist caricature he used, I can't be bothered to go back and check). Because when I think of democracy, I think of the right of self-determination of a people, which the MNF seems to directly oppose. Most Iraqis want the occupiers gone, so much so that many of them *gasp* DARE to take up arms (who would EVER condone the right of brown people to fight for self-determination with ACTUAL GUNS AND BOMBS -- only SAVAGES and the defeatist leftists who apologize for them, apparently). Certainly few Iraqis desire to see cities such as Fallujah or Baquba destroyed and decimated. And I'd imagine that the millions forced from their homes would prefer to return. Perhaps just a few more years (or maybe a few more Friedmans?) before Iraqi citizens control their own lives?

Intersting - did Saddam reflect popular will then, given that the insurgency only sprung up after he had been deposed?

And remember that although you are accusing me of being a racist (twice in the same post, actually) imperialist, you are here justifying the insurgency and its victims are Iraqis, not westerners. The insurgency is not a struggle for self-determination, that has already been achieved. The insurgency is a struggle for power and revenge.

(And I think the ad homs reflect badly on the strength of your argument, Gavin).

 

[Mr. Tea]

But basically the Nazis sought to control the economy and privatise industry. If we're talking about a scale that's well off to the left.

Umm, is my understanding of political economics chronically fucked-up, or did you mean 'nationalise industry'? Isn't privatisation generally regarded as conservative?

 

[vimothy]

The difference is that these socialist states did not achieve communism whereas the nazi state did achieve nazism.

So whilst you can have a go at the left for not coming good on its promises, I don't think you can say that nazism and communism are the same on a philosophical level.

I do misunderstand you, it all seems very wishy washy. The welfare state also guarantees certain freedoms, so that will have to do until we achieve communism.

But surely from your point of view - if we did away with democracy, people would be free to trade without the shackles of things like health and safety regulations, taxes, and the penal system? You presumably approve of the conditions in Iraq which have allowed cunning enterpreneurs like yourself to increase their profits?

Firstly, I am not an entreprenuer. I am pro-capitalist, but I'm still working the same shit job I'd be working if I was a socialist. Secondly, I think that question is below the belt.

 

[vimothy]

Umm, is my understanding of political economics chronically fucked-up, or did you mean 'nationalise industry'? Isn't privatisation generally regarded as conservative?

I did yes. Sorry, raging hangover today!

 

[john eden]

Firstly, I am not an entreprenuer. I am pro-capitalist, but I'm still working the same shit job I'd be working if I was a socialist. Secondly, I think that question is below the belt.

I'm sorry you feel it is out of order, but I am trying to unpick what place morality and solidarity can have in your pro-capitalist free-market ideology.

I have certainly read some nutjob "libertarian" material from the US which seems to suggest that the market should override petty concerns about welfare.

You haven't said what "basic freedoms" are the ones you feel should be protected by democracy. Is it just "freedom to trade" or does it go further for you?

 

[john eden]

Firstly, I am not an entreprenuer. I am pro-capitalist, but I'm still working the same shit job I'd be working if I was a socialist.

perhaps if you were a socialist you could organise with you fellow workers to improve your conditions, though, eh?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I did yes. Sorry, raging hangover today!

Phew. You really had me worried for a moment.

Good night in the bierkeller, then?

 

[Mr. Tea]

perhaps if you were a socialist you could organise with you fellow workers to improve your conditions, though, eh?

Don't be so naive! First they'd have to appoint (by ballot, of course) a committee-appointing sub-committee, whose job it would be to select people to a committee. Once that was done, the committee could set about re-structuring the original sub-committee...

 

[IdleRich]

Incidentally your question was: "Well, if that was the case then (1) why didn't they say so? and (2) why did they take steps which they were warned would (and which in fact have) turn(ed) it in to a more hideous mess from which human bombs will only fly faster?")

Incidentally by (2) I meant "attack Iraq" in other words.

Rich, this is the most boring bit of the whole goddamn argument!

It is and I'll leave it here, it's just you completely misrepresented what as I said as being its exact opposite and despite my clarifications you kept doing so and I found it hard not to respond to that. Anyway, enough.

 

[vimothy]

I'm sorry you feel it is out of order, but I am trying to unpick what place morality and solidarity can have in your pro-capitalist free-market ideology.

I have certainly read some nutjob "libertarian" material from the US which seems to suggest that the market should override petty concerns about welfare.

You haven't said what "basic freedoms" are the ones you feel should be protected by democracy. Is it just "freedom to trade" or does it go further for you?

It's not "nutjob". Most of the libertarian stuff comes from the most economically aware writers around (Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, Cato Institute, Mont Pelerin Society, etc). The free market should regulate all industries, including health and education. Sitting around on the dole all day is not a basic freedom. Not being murdered by the secret police is a basic freedom. Being allowed to leave the country is a basic freedom.

(Related question: any good socialist or just leftist economics writers?)

 

[vimothy]

Incidentally by (2) I meant "attack Iraq" in other words.

Attacking Iraq didn't necessarily create the insurgency. Whatever failures there have been occured after the invasion.

It is and I'll leave it here, it's just you completely misrepresented what as I said as being its exact opposite and despite my clarifications you kept doing so and I found it hard not to respond to that. Anyway, enough.

I didn't misrepresent you. All I was saying was that if I don't know the "real reasons" for the invasion, you don't either. (And what has destroyed American efforts at the peace? Fear and stupidity).

 

[Mr. Tea]

What about being forced to beg because there are no jobs and no social security, dying from a treatable disease because you can't afford health insurance or being destined to a life of menial drudgery because your parents couldn't afford to send you to school - are they basic freedoms, Vim?

 

[john eden]

It's not "nutjob". Most of the libertarian stuff comes from the most economically aware writers around (Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, Cato Institute, Mont Pelerin Society, etc). The free market should regulate all industries, including health and education. Sitting around on the dole all day is not a basic freedom. Not being murdered by the secret police is a basic freedom. Being allowed to leave the country is a basic freedom.

(Related question: any good socialist or just leftist economics writers?)

It all seems a bit arbitrary to me. You have the "freedom" to starve to death or die of an illness, but not to get shot by the cops? I suppose you (literally) pays your money and takes your choice.

Good leftist economics writers - there was this guy called Marx? He's supposed to be quite good.

As you've probably guessed, economics is not my strong point - but I've quite enjoyed some of the stuff written by Castoriadis and Mattick. They are not exactly mainstream, it has to be said. But then neither am I.

 

[vimothy]

What about being forced to beg because there are no jobs and no social security, dying from a treatable disease because you can't afford health insurance or being destined to a life of menial drudgery because your parents couldn't afford to send you to school - are they basic freedoms, Vim?

'Fraid not, no.

(If that seems harsh its worth remembering that this idea (the free market) is expected to increase wealth and prosperity. There will be more jobs, better, cheaper health care, better schools, higher levels of education, and all the rest. That's why people argue for the free market in general, not just because they're evilo entrepreneurs who want to make cash but because they want to improve the lot of society.)

 

[john eden]

What about being forced to beg because there are no jobs and no social security, dying from a treatable disease because you can't afford health insurance or being destined to a life of menial drudgery because your parents couldn't afford to send you to school - are they basic freedoms, Vim?

You just need to be more creative, Mr Tea!

As a free-marketeer once told me in all seriousness: "everyone has something to trade, even if it's just a blowjob". That's the beauty of capitalism right there!

 

[john eden]

'Fraid not, no.

(If that seems harsh its worth remembering that this idea (the free market) is expected to increase wealth and prosperity. There will be more jobs, better, cheaper health care, better schools, higher levels of education, and all the rest. That's why people argue for the free market in general, not just because they're evilo entrepreneurs who want to make cash but because they want to improve the lot of society.)

It's just a coincidence that most people who argue for free-market capitalism happen to be quite well off already. I think it's important to remember that.

 

[vimothy]

It all seems a bit arbitrary to me. You have the "freedom" to starve to death or die of an illness, but not to get shot by the cops? I suppose you (literally) pays your money and takes your choice

It's not arbitrary at all. We should all be free from oppression from the state. Everything else is your own business.

Good leftist economics writers - there was this guy called Marx? He's supposed to be quite good.

Marx would have made a good sociology lecturer, but was a terrible economist (just think of how many successful and prosperous socialist econmies there are or have been).

As you've probably guessed, economics is not my strong point but I've quited enjoyed some of the stuff written by Castoriadis and Mattick. They are not exactly mainstream, it has to be said. But then neither am I.

Will check them out, ta. Doug Henwood's Left Buiness Observer (http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/) is pretty good as well. At least he seems to understand the system that he's criticising.

 

[vimothy]

It's just a coincidence that most people who argue for free-market capitalism happen to be quite well off already. I think it's important to remember that.

What do you mean by quite well off? Do you mean that they have jobs? Academics and journalists are reasonably well paid, but just as many (if not more) are left wing marxoids, so I don't think that's relevent.

 

[Mr. Tea]

There will be more jobs, better, cheaper health care, better schools, higher levels of education, and all the rest.

Pardon me, but isn't that EXACTLY what Communists say about Communism? I'm sure you, of all people, need no lesson on what happened in the USSR.
The modern USA, while obviously a damn sight better place to live than Stalinist Russia, isn't exactly a utopia of peace, prosperity and cheap health care, is it? So what's gone wrong? Is it because America isn't free-market enough?

 

[crackerjack]

You just need to be more creative, Mr Tea!

As a free-marketeer once told me in all seriousness: "everyone has something to trade, even if it's just a blowjob". That's the beauty of capitalism right there!

And that's why its libertarian exponents are so fucked up - the right used to be all about conservative pragmatism. Now it's in the hands of wild-eyed ideologues.