From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 06:39:12 BST
To Mark --
who, without addressing me by name, has sent a 2-part message in response to
a personal opinion about his favorite anarchist.
I shall spare other DM participants the necessity of reading all the
remarks. Here, though, are some of the most germane with respect to what I
had previously stated, with some new comments.
msh says:
> If your idea of America
> is restricted to the actions of the USG in expanding its military
> presence around the world, or to domestic actions of the federal and
> state governments that contribute to widening the wealth gap, then I
> agree that Chomsky hates America.
>
> On the other hand, if one sees America as the sum of its people's
> hopes and aspirations, a place where people deserve but seldom
> receive the full promise of this country's ideals as found in it's
> principle documents, then "hate" is the last word to come to mind.
> Certainly few if any of the many thousands of Americans who hear him
> speak every year come away with the notion that Chomsky "hates
> America." In fact, I'd say that his love for America and its people,
> as well as all the people of the world, can be seen in his
> unrelenting pursuit of the truth behind the myth of American
> "patriotism."
I don't know what Americans msh has associated or talked with, but those
that I know have never intimated to me that they've been denied "the full
promise of this country's ideals as found in its principle documents." And
I think, were they to have heard Chomsky speak, they would strongly disagree
with msh that Chomsky's "unrelenting pursuit of the truth behind the myth of
American 'patriotism'" demonstrates his "love for America and its people".
Of course, I may be associating with the "wrong people", since the Americans
I know have worked for a living under a capitalist system which has afforded
them an opportunity to ply their talents in their chosen fields with rather
generous rewards for their productivity. Many of these uncomplaining
people, like myself, have also served in the armed forces as a demonstration
of their patriotism for this country.
msh:
> I'll ask again, since you failed to respond before: What is your
> objection to identifying, challenging, and hopefully ameliorating if
> not extinguishing fascist tendencies within the American population
> and government?
Apart from the "workers collective" revolution advocated by socialists like
Chomsky, I don't see any imminent threat of fascism in the American
population or its elected government. Nor do I or any of my friends feel
"oppressed" by the entrepreneurs of our free market system. On the other
hand, in seven decades of American citizenship, I have observed an alarming
drift toward socialism which, if the public does not soon wake up, will
inevitably lead to state control.
>
> The war in Vietnam was all about the USG's
> intention to prevent Vietnamese self-determination, as recently
> admitted even by the Secretary of Defense at the time, Robert
> Mcnamara. I think this qualifies as a threat to peace, national self-
> determination, and international cooperation, don't you?
US involvement in Vietnam was mainly to stop the spread of Communism.
According to the Domino Theory, popular in the '50s, if one country fell to
Communism, the surrounding countries would topple as well. There was also a
political incentive: the Vietnam Era administrations saw Vietnam as an
opportunity to strengthen their reputation after failing in the Bay of Pigs
incident.
The war was to have determined whether Vietnam would be united under a
Communist government or remain partitioned into North and South Vietnam.
Due to America's unwillingness to fully commit itself to this mission, the
war ended with the unification of the country under a communist government.
The consequences of our pull-out actually posed a greater danger to world
peace than our limited military action, and "self-determination" never had a
chance. Our mission in southeast Asia could not have been achieved through
diplomacy. A war was called for, and war is not peace. But it's a stretch
of the imagination to assert that the US was, or is, "a threat to
(international) peace", and the US goal has always been to promote
self-determination.
> Given that the same thing is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan at this
> very moment, I see nothing to disagree with in this remark, even
> today. In fact, just prior to this most recent invasion and
> occupation, international opinion considered the United States to be
> far more threatening to world peace than was Saddam's Iraq. This is
> why millions and millions of people around the globe turned out to
> protest the invasion even before it began.
Obviously those "millions and millions" do not (yet) sense the danger of the
Islamic terrorist movement, the value of replacing a ruthless genocidal
dictator with a stable self-governing sovereignty (i.e. self-determination),
or the noble efforts of a handful of free nations to secure the free world
against anarchy and terror.
> This is a good place to paste
> Scott Ritter, again:
>
> "If you call yourself an American that means that you have embraced
> the constitution, because that is what an American is. A citizen of
> the United States of America is someone who has sworn an oath of
> allegiance to that document, to the words, to the ideals of that
> document. Right now we have citizens who don't even understand what
> that document is."
Unfortunately, that's probably true. (It's high time for us all to "wake
up" and defend our freedom.)
> "As for your charge of leftism and anarchy, I believe you are
> correct. But your implied negative interpretation of these positions
> derives from simplistic, even comic book understanding of the terms.
> ... It's a mistake to rely on the ignorance
> of your audience to carry the message of your remarks: you're in the
> wrong place for that. You might want to try the Limbaugh or O'Reilly
> web sites."
>
> Care to respond?
No.
> msh:
> This is a lot of hysterical and unsupported bullshit, and a very
> clear example of what I mean by political dogma, see below. BTW, I'm
> an American citizen, so I have no idea what you mean by my
> "compatriots in the UK."
Sorry. Somehow I got the idea that you were a Brit.
Mark, I know you have another full page of diatribes and insults, but I'm
going to opt out of this one-upmanship debate. Frankly, I have no interest
in Chomsky who, in my opinion, doesn't merit the effort. This can't be fun
for you either, and it's getting us nowhere. You can call it "going down in
defeat", if you want; but I'm a philosopher, not a polemicist and certainly
not a masochist. Besides, I prefer dialogues that have some chance of a
constructive outcome.
Let's just leave it at the point of "agreeing to disagree".
Good luck with your socialist revolution.
Ham
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 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 06:50:59 BST