From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Dec 26 2004 - 14:49:36 GMT
Hi Keith, Sam, et al,
On the Godfather, keith had said:
I think if we start with the premise that toppling Hussein was
morally desirable then it's unlikely that the UN policy would have
lead to that outcome.
msh replied:
Ah, but, see, starting with this premise frames the discussion in a
way that favors the Godfather's position, and tacitly recognizes his
moral authority. Sure, toppling Hussein was morally desirable, but
was he really the apex of evil? There is plenty of reason to believe
that most of the world sees the Godfather as a far, far greater
threat. Why should the energies of the UN be dedicated to toppling
one of the GF's out-of-favor hit men.
keith now says:
well I should have written "I think IF we start...".
Anyway, I want to un-pick the Godfather analogy a little. I can see
why we would want to use it, however it is a bit sneaky. It's
prejudiced and emotive, and has a bunch of Scorsese images backing it
up. Godfather = Clearly not a good guy. USG similar to Godfather.
Therefore USG = Clearly not a good guy
msh says:
Well, more accurately, in the ways the USG is similar to the GF, the
USG is not a good guy. I'd be willing to argue that they are not as
dissimilar as you believe: both act to protect and advance the
interests of a favored few. But we can drop the GF analogy.
I think it's time to bring a little Tolstoy into the discussion.
States are violent by their very nature, so I don't want to be
singling out the USG; they just happen to be the state with the most
violent means at their disposal. Also, the first enemy of any State
is its own people; the people must be controlled for the State to
perform its function, which is to maintain and enhance the power of
the elites who finance it. In a dictatorship, control is by means of
the bludgeon and boot; in any state with a modicum of free
expression, the means of control must be more subtle, such as by
convincing people they live in a democracy, and that what they think
really matters. Here's former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark on
the issue of democracy:
"[We need] to liberate this country from corporate oligarchy;
they control our lives. This is not a democracy, it's a plutocracy.
The people don’t rule here, wealth rules, the corporations rule.
They rule the Congress, they elect the President, they run the
Pentagon, they own the media."
keith:
I think a more fair comparison is the Roman Empire. The Romans
brought peace, prosperity, law & order, culture, agriculture,
sanitation etc etc to a large portion of the world - proceeded by
very sharp swords.
msh says:
Uh, oh. I think Sam and I touched on the distinction between violent
imperialism and the occasional benevolent imperial deed, the later
never a successful apology for the former. This sort of argument can
be, and has been, used to justify slavery in the American south. You
know, "Look at all we've given these people: they have food,
clothing, a roof, plenty of work. Where would they be without us?"
Is this a valid justification for slavery? I trust you get the
point.
keith:
Now, against this measure, I think the USA's methods are generally
less brutal (though obviously not in Iraq) as they are conquering the
world with MacDonalds rather than guns, however I'm not sure their
legacy is going to be quite as positive as the Roman's. I guess it
depends on what history sees. Bill of Rights or Brand Management?
msh says.
The McDonalds come in AFTER the application of the sword. IOW, the
sword, whether military or economical hegemony, the violence in Iraq
or the subtler violence in NAFTA (imposed law backed by the sword),
clears the way for the corporations. In either case, it is certainly
not a matter of democratic nations wilfully choosing to be immersed
in advertising and essentially meaningless options, to have their
political decisions pre-empted by a corporate oligarchy. (See Ramsey
Clarke, above.)
On regime change, keith said:
It seemed to me that the policy of the UN was one of containment
rather than regime change. The UN policy seemed more concerned with
Saddam's threat to the rest of 'us' rather than the people of Iraq.
msh replied:
Again, there are plenty of bad guys in the world, plenty of nation's
that need a regime change. By focusing on Hussein, our attention is
being directed away from more serious threats to world stability.
That is, by focusing on Hussein (or Iran, or NK. or Cuba) we are
being manipulated by the Godfather.
keith now says:
There are plenty of bad guys - Yes, but IF you are going to tackle
them then you need to start somewhere, and it makes sense to start
with the weediest as the others may get the message before you get to
them.
msh says:
But my position is that the worst of the "others'" already know the
message as they, apparently, have placed themselves in charge of
delivering it, at any cost. It seems as though you have internalized
the idea that the western powers are on the right track; that they
make mistakes here and there, but are essentially interested in
making the world a better place for everyone. IMO, this has been and
continues to be repeatedly contradicted by history. I think it is a
mistake to think that states are moral agents.
keith:
Other serious threats to worlds stability. Actually I think the
world is quite stable at the moment, in comparison to almost any
historical period I can think of. Sure there are some very serious
issues facing humanity as a whole (Food distribution imbalance, Civil
and Ethnic War, Health and Education provision, AIDS etc etc etc...)
and yes these things should be put higher up the priority list.
On higher ground:
keith said:
I'd like to suggest some alternative strategies. Do you think any of
them would have led to a better outcome?
msh replied:
Well, I'll play along here, for the academic exercise. But I really
believe our mental energies would be better spent focusing further up
the food chain.
keith says:
OK, I'm happy to try and climb the mountain a bit.
This thread is Understanding Quality and Power. Here's my manifesto
feel free to shoot this down.
a) Power itself is a low quality concept, implying static control.
msh: Agreed.
b) Power concentrated in too few hands is even more likely to imply
a static situation.
msh: Agreed
c) Democracy is a high quality idea, as it specifically limits power
and encourages change when things are going badly.
msh: Agreed
d) All postions of power should come under democratic control. I
should be able to run for CEO of Microsoft. You and Sam can run for
head of the Corleone family if you like...
msh says:
LOL. I'm trying to visualize myself with an orange rind wedged into
my mouth. It's not a pretty sight.
And I agree, democracy is a high quality goal. But remember what
Ghandi said when asked what he thought of Western Democracy: "It
sounds like it might be a good idea."
On a side note, keith said:
As a side note I'd like to just point out that I think the real
reason we're in Iraq has nothing to do with high principles like
freedom and democracy, nor to do with proactive retaliation against
WMD. I think that's all smoke and mirrors concocted to keep the
chattering classes quiet. The Middle East is strategically important
for all Oil consuming nations and the 'west' doesn't want to be held
over that particular barrel as the oil begins to run out.
msh replied:
This is exactly right, but the control of petro resources is only
part of it. Gaining a larger military foothold in the region is
also important in order to force the neo-con brand of economic
hegemony on the Middle East, and eventually the rest of the world.
The Godfather needs markets, and free resources, and cheap or slave
labor to keep the profits flowing.
keith says:
Well, I think that's just the natural consequence of the species
having allowed itself to define a concept of profit. The day that
someone decided that their days effort was worth more than the guy in
the next hut we took a wrong turn.
msh says:
I agree it was a wrong turn. But the concept of profit is only a few
hundred years old, and is certainly not something "hard-wired" into
the species. It is often portrayed as such in order to justify the
continued exploitation of the most for the benefit of the few.
keith:
I guess Platt would say that if we hadn't done that then no one would
ever get out of bed and we'd still be in the huts. I'm not so sure,
but I certainly don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle.
This is best covered in the capitalism thread I think.
msh says:
We might be able to stuff a leg or two back into the bottle. With
the free and open and dynamic interchange of ideas, we might very
well be able to curtail the genie's self-serving yet destructive
behavior. We shall see. But I agree. This is something for the
capitalism thread.
Thanks to all,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." -- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' Mark Steven Heyman (msh) -- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html 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 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 26 2004 - 14:48:58 GMT