Dear Rog (and partially Platt and Jonathan),
I still owe you a response to your 16/9 20:12 -0400. (I e-mail
mainly in the weekends, too.)
You "wrote sarcastically in response to a lame suggestion: So our
response to 5000 casualties should be to send them money?"
If "sending them money" is in your opinion the best way of
"sharing our wealth" to "strenghten the immune system etc. of the
inpoverished and disintegrated societies on which terrorism feeds
and to which terrorism restores bits of self-esteem": Yes.
Wouldn't that be a response befitting of a (largely) Christian
nation?
It might even be more constructive than turning the other
cheek... Apart from timing and chronological sequence you
responded 18/9 22:09 -0400 to Gerhard with essentially the same
idea, claiming that "America" already follows my suggestion: "I
think we need to lead by example and 'teach others how to fish'
as they say. However, it cannot be in response to a violent act,
as it just encourages more violence. I know America, and after we
enforce justice we invariably offer our aid and love."
I don't think it is essential in which chronological sequence we
catch and judge the terrorists (if possible...) and help to
rehabilitate the societies from which they sprang. (Well, of
course it would have been better if we had helped to rehabilitate
these societies before terrorists started to spring from them.)
Mind you: I would never suggest to transfer money into a
bankaccount of Bin Laden, the Taliban or any organization
supporting terrorism, so I don't see why aid would encourage more
violence. If I interpret Bin Laden's ideas rightly (from the
source Platt suggested 21/9 10:48 -0400:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.htm
l ), he will surely not experience such aid as a reward for
terrorist attacks on the USA, but only as a sneaky way to convert
his followers. Military response however would reinforce the
arguments with which he (apparently succesfully)
roused others against the USA. Military response would encourage
violence more than aid would. (Don't interpret this as a
suggestion to refrain from a military response that is necessary
and sufficient to catch and judge the terrorists.)
I am not suggesting that "you", i.c. the USA should help
rehabilitate the societies from which terrorism springs, but that
"we", i.c. the whole better-off part of the world, should do so.
In fact it would even be better if not the USA but the UN would
catch and judge the terrorists and would remedy the situations
"valuing" the rise of terrorism. (I try to avoid the SOM-concept
of causation.) The UN would be seen by the rest of the world as a
more impartial judge and its aid would not so easily be
experienced as converting people to another way of life. It is a
pity that the UN is not able to play this role (as a lot of
nations do not value such a role).
Having studied development economy I am hesitant to suggest that
(more) financial development aid is a solution for impoverished
and disintegrated societies. Receiving aid damages self-esteem
and won't help to heal wounded pride in one's culture and way of
life (one of the roots of terrorism). Financial aid could be part
of a package also containing measures to stimulate trade
(preferably regional rather than global) and direct investment
(re-investing profits and utilizing local staff, not importing
too much foreign experts who pretend to know better than the
locals "how to fish"). Political stability is also essential, of
course, so measures should be taken to stimulate regional
co-operation (economic and otherwise) and to curb trade in
weapons.
The BEST military way to catch and judge the terrorists (without
making civilian casualties in terrorist-harboring countries in
such amounts that you create more terrorists than you catch)
might indeed be to send commandos to those terrorist-harboring
countries. (No full-blown war against countries. No large scale
bombing.) I doubt however if any military response is GOOD
ENOUGH. The experience of the Russians in Afghanistan and
Chechnya is not very hope-giving that even the best commando
troops even under a full occupation of a country can catch
terrorists turning guerillas when these are supported by the
local population. The Vietnam war is a case in point to.
I want you to understand, that it is very difficult for me to
write that it may be necessary to send commandos to catch and
judge terrorists. I am more than a borderline pacifist.
I am member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
Quakers wrote in 1660 to Charles II of England (when Quakers were
suspected of having sided with Cromwell): "Our principle is, and
our practices have always been, to seek peace, and ensue it, and
to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God, seeking
the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of
all. All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with
all outward wars, and strife, and fightings with outward weapons,
for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever, and this is our
testimony to the whole world. That spirit of Christ by which we
are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a
thing as evil, and again to move unto it; and we do certainly
know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ
which leads us into all Truth will never move us to fight and war
against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of
Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world."
Of course the Quakers who wrote this were primarily trying to
save their skins, trying to convince Charles II that they were no
threat to him. They weren't even completely truthful as some
Quakers had fought for Cromwell.
Quakers have ever since been trying to take this "peace
testimony", as it is called, very seriously. Not in a dogmatic
sense though. The peace testimony has been phrased and rephrased
in many different situations in many different ways, sometimes
only stating "we don't use violence in this situation, but you
should do
as your conscience tells you", at other times stating "no-one
should ever use violence in any situation". Nowadays not all
Quakers are comfortable any more with the way words like God,
Christ and Truth were used in this statement. The essence however
remains essential for the self-understanding of most Quakers:
"the experience of divine guidance is what we value most and from
past experience we don't expect to be divinely guided to use
armed violence in the future".
Quakers therefore traditionally refuse military service. Openness
to (new) divine guidance being our highest value, Quakers
respected the conscientious choice of some of them to go in the
army to fight Hitler in WWII, however. Pacifism is not just a
negative stance among Quakers. We have been active in all kinds
of alternative ways of preventing and conciliating conflicts.
I do admit however (and I am not the only Quaker to do so) that
society needs police forces (with a legal monopoly of using armed
violence) against criminals. I don't like Pirsig's simplification
of society against biology and intellect having to support
society in this, but as a rough approximation it stands. Against
criminals who operate globally one needs police forces who do so
too. When criminals are backed by nations, these police forces
may even need to revert to military means.
The problem however is that in the experience of a huge majority
of the world population there is no global society that can
legitimize such global policing. Any nation or group of nations
pretending to use force in the name of world society will be
accused by a large part of the world of partiality, of using
force only in its own interests. Especially if the political
rhetoric for internal consumption in the nation which would be
leader of this coalition has always contained strong sentiments
of "only send the US army abroad when our vital interests are at
stake" and is broadcasted far and wide, the US is simply not
accepted and acceptable as policeman of the world. And
understandably so. I don't really know a solution for this
problem.
Mayby commando troops consisting of say Gurkha's could succeed in
Afghanistan where Americans and Russians cannot?
Indeed, it is not right to blame the victim. Identifying the
patterns valuing (not causing, because they leave people free
not to conform to the pattern...) terrorism does not imply
apportioning blame, however. Especially for the would-be leading
nation of a coalition against terrorism identifying the patterns
of value in which it is rooted is essential for success.
In Dutch news commentaries we are constantly reminded that US
political mores dictate that (not only victims, but also)
political leaders are not criticized in times of war. Everyone
rallies behind the flag. In the Netherlands (and I guess in
Europe generally) we are used not only to keep thinking for
ourselves in such situations (as most Americans undoubtedly still
do too), but also to publicly express those thoughts, even if
that means criticising our leaders. It occurs to me that this
freedom to publicly criticise your leaders guarantees better and
in a sense more democratical political decisions, even if leaders
having to deal with such criticism may be less decisive.
Recognizing US leadership I therefore ask freedom to criticise US
(plans for) actions and serious consideration of possible roots
of terrorism (partly) in patterns of value of which the US and
the American way of life themselves are a part.
In an earlier posting I suggested that a lot of reactions to the
terrorist attacks (mainly by Americans of course, but also of
others who feel their way of life is attacked) are part of an
ancient social pattern of value of retaliation in kind or even
pre-emptive violence from one society against another society.
"That will teach them never to do that again!" I don't agree with
Jonathan (16/9 13:50 +0300) that pre-emptive violence is better
than retaliatory violence. Both are part of the same social
pattern of value that dates from a time when people couldn't see
that the world is a whole and that humanity is essentially one
society. The response to crime on a local as well as a global
scale should be justice and setting up a political system that
protects everyone, not retaliatory or pre-emptive violence by the
victims and reinforcement of an outdated political system of
autonomous nations pretending to be seperate societies that can
harm each other without -earlier or later- harming themselves.
There is another ancient social pattern of values involved, I
think. Whenever a society (or a part of society) develops
internal inequality of any kind (and according to the MoQ once it
is recognized as "inequality" it implies "inequivalence"...) some
will feel privileged and others will feel underprivileged.
Regardless of luck, virtue or whatever being at the root of the
inequality, the privileged will develop systems of ideas to
legitimize their privileges and the underprivileged will develop
systems of ideas to legitimize redistribution.
These two types of systems of ideas will inevitably clash and
struggle for the dominance of the intellectual level. They will
also mix and make compromises. The related intellectual pattern
of values does not consist of one system of ideas (developed by
either a priviliged or an underprivileged group of people) but it
consists of all the systems of ideas developed in that (part of)
society, the pattern being their correlation with social roles
and positions. On a somewhat larger scale one can even speak of
an intellectual pattern of values as the pattern of similar
(parts of) societies developing similar sets of systems of ideas
by privileged and underprivileged groups in those (parts of)
societies.
We should be aware that each and every concept we use is tainted
by this clash of ideas. If we use the concept of "jealousy", we
should be aware that it is a concept often used by the privileged
to convince the underprivileged that they should be content with
what they have: the privileged are just lucky or they merit their
privileges and the underprivileged should not begrudge them their
fortune. If we use the concept of (redistributive) "justice", we
should be aware that it is a concept preferred by the
underprivileged, which has usually become (to a smaller or larger
extent) part of the compromise that holds a society together. It
is the same with concepts such as "crime" and "terrorism"...
No such system of ideas is "true" in an absolute sense. It is
valued by a specific group of people for its role in
safeguarding or regaining privileges. Only the overarching
intellectual pattern of values can be said to have more or less
quality in an absolute sense: it is more or less able to hold
societies together and prevent disintegration. An intellectual
pattern of values is not more or less "true", but "truth" is at
stake in the clashes between systems of ideas forming the
pattern. (Just like a social pattern of values does not have more
or less "status"; "status" is what is at stake in the patterns of
competition and co-operation between individuals that form
societies.)
To prevent misunderstandings: social inequality is not the only
source of intellectual patterns of values. Another, slightly
older, source is the dependence of social patterns of value on
biological patterns of value. The pattern (and balance) of
competition and co-operation that makes a society is directly
influenced by the fluctuations and rhythms in ecosystems, the
more so when a society is less technologically developed.
Societies collectively develop systems of ideas about causation
(!), merit and blame for fortune and misfortune and about how to
influence it. The best (truest) of such systems of ideas lessen
that dependence of society on biology. They always have a dual
role however: they both influence the interdependence of society
and biology and they apportion merit and blame ... between
privileged and underprivileged groups.
SOM science serves societies' collective fortune, but it also
serves "intellectuals", giving them status and safeguarding their
privileges.
Rog, I leave it to you (at first) to determine what role your
story has in our intellectual pattern of values (to give a hint:
how true do you think it feels for the world's underprivileged?)
and what quality that intellectual pattern of values has in the
sense of being able to hold our global society together. I quote
as an (I hope representative) summary: "We are a very wealthy
people that have learned to very easily produce amazing amounts
of wealth due to our values of allowing people to have the
freedom and creativity to pursue their own interests AS LONG AS
THEY DON'T HURT OTHERS."
There is a last -historically speaking more recent- social
pattern of values I want to bring to your attention:
Wherever an initial dose of good luck or (even marginal) merit
gives a geographically differentiated part of a society an
advantage over the rest of the society, the difference tends to
grow rather than diminish over time. As a Dutch saying goes: "De
duivel schijt altijd op de grote hoop." (The devil always shits
on the big pile.) There is a Bible quote saying about the same,
but I forgot how it went and where to find it.
One can see the pattern in every country where the mobility of
the population is not too much restricted by allegiance or
confinement to smaller scale social entities or lack of
resources: population concentrates in big cities and in those
parts of the country that have some initial advantage usually in
terms of natural infrastructure for travel and trade. People
flocking together create infrastructure of which others that
follow profit too. Infrastructure facilitates prosperity.
Prosperity atracts the most resourceful (especially when the
prosperous try to restrict fortune seekers) who stimulate local
prosperity even more. Those whose sources of income are located
in the rest of the country but who have wealth to spare invest it
in the booming locations depriving the rest of the country of
investments and prosperity.
On a globally scale population concentrates less than national,
due to allegiance and confinement to nations and cultural
differences, but investments do so just the same.
So I can now give my answers to your questions to Squonk of 17/9
20:50 -0400 "Exactly how is it that we suppressed economic
advancement in all these countries over the past 4000 years or
so? ... Who gets to decide what is equal? ... And finally, what
made us priveledged? Did we just get lucky?"
Unlike Sam I think luck and merit are only marginally involved.
It is not the virtue of me and my contemporaries that has created
Dutch infrastructure that values (not causes) Dutch wealth. Being
the main drain of Western Europe (the delta of a couple of big
rivers) helped to create a big transport industry, but the same
could have been true of say Egypt or Irak and was true at earlier
points in history... Western Europe's "geographical and
ecological quirks" were of such marginal importance, that the
center of gravity of fortune has been moving over the earth quite
a bit during those past 4000 years: Egypt, Irak, Greece, Italy
(Roman empire), Constantinopel (Byzantium), Northern Italy,
Spain, the Netherlands, England, the USA ... (I am not trying to
be precise and there were of course more centers of gravity at
most points in history. From before the Roman empire until the
end of "our" Middle Ages China may have been the most wealthy and
civilized part of the world.)
Every center of gravity of fortune in history suppressed economic
advancement in a wide circle around itself by attracting greedy
people and/or their investments and by creating political
structures defending their interests. Today the circle encloses
the whole globe. Flocking together created economies of scale and
relatively cheaper infrastructure (infrastructure in a broad
sense: including at the beginning of recorded history the
creation of written language itself). Exploitation has always
been first and foremost something between local/regional
privileged and underprivileged primarily facilitated by
ideological legitimization (systems of ideas of the privileged
dominating those of the underprivileged) and only secondary by
brute force. International exploitation is therefore less a
matter of "stealing" and more a matter of "receiving" (buying
something knowing it has been stolen). You implicitly acknowledge
this when you write to Squonk 18/9 21:49 -0400: "I steal oil? No,
I buy oil. Saudis sell oil. ... If you have problems with
exploitation by totalitarian Saudis of their people, then say
so." And of course international exploitation is offering prices
for what you buy and asking prices for what you produce that
imply hugely different wage levels of the producers and getting
away with that because of the oligopolistic structure of markets,
home market protection, protection against spreading of
technology etc. In the end the unfavorable terms of exchange for
underprivileged countries are due to status differences. One
cannot really blame Western countries that our way of life and
our products have more status than those produced elsewhere, but
we can be blamed that we don't share our unmerited wealth.
Who decides what is equal? That is the result of a struggle
between systems of ideas... for instance on this list.
Those "values of allowing people to have the freedom and
creativity to pursue their own interests", which you see as the
root and legitimization of Western wealth, may rather be the
result of the flocking together of greedy and resourceful people
from everywhere.
With friendly greetings,
Wim Nusselder
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:31 BST