[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 06:47:29 -0700
No, no, no, Irene. The time table starts with the end of the Cold War.
Fukuyama looks around and there are no challenges to Liberal Democracy. He
has studied Kojeve who argued that Hegel rather than Marx was right,
Capitalism (Liberal Democracy) wins. It isn't just the U.S., it is
Liberal-Democracies wherever they exist. Liberal Democracy began in the U.S.
but it spread throughout Europe, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere. There
are no serious challenges to Liberal Democracy. Sure there are still some
rogue states that can cause some trouble but nothing major stands in the way
of Liberal Democracy succeeding throughout the world and comprising the end
of history. That is Fukuyama's thesis.
Now Fukuyama doesn't draw distinctions between Liberal Democratic nations.
Relatively Conservative America is not differentiated from European Welfare
states. They are all Liberal Democracies and Liberal Democracies don't war
with each other.
And you don't have your facts straight. Germany and Japan were not Liberal
Democracies in WWII. They were Fascist States. Fascism and Communism were
the two challenges that Liberal Democracy faced in the last century and they
were both defeated.
The one thing you have somewhat right is the repeating of what I said about
the Neocons. That is Fukuyama's argument, i.e., that Liberal Democracy
cannot be exported. He wrote in America At the Crossroads that the elements
for becoming a Liberal Democracy were not present in Iraq and that the
Neocons had made a mistake. Therefore, he wrote, he was abandoning the
Neocons. Also, as I wrote, it isn't likely that anyone is going to try that
(exporting Democracy) again any time soon. However, in Bush's defense, he
didn't really launch the war against Iraq to export Democracy. That wasn't
his real reason or even one of his auxiliary reasons as far as I know. It
was more a result of having to do something with Iraq (if you break it, you
own it) and there in the wings were all these drooling Neocons; so why not
give it a try. Actually it was a bit more than a mere try for Bush because
he had read Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy. He believed Democracy
would succeed in Iraq. Fukuyama did not.
I don't mind dissent if it is informed dissent. I should make you hold out
your hand for a rap from my ruler, for example, for not knowing that Germany
was a Fascist state. Really, Irene.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:05 AM
To: lit-ideas
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
What say ye pacifists? Are you ready to reform? What say ye?
Doesn't sound like you're too interested in dissent. But real quick, we can
talk all we want about ideologies, but the bottom line is, world peace is
achieved through not waging war. Given that the U.S. waged the Vietnam War
and then started another war in Iraq, the U.S. has no credibility with not
waging war, which is to say, world peace. Also, given that the U.S. is
revoking constitutional rights and freedoms within its borders for the
duration of the war, which just so happens to be something in the realm of
eternity, the U.S. has no credibility with liberal democracy either. And as
far as liberal democracies not attacking each other, WWI was waged in
Europe, and other than Japan, WWII was waged in Europe, in and among liberal
democracies, so that claim makes no sense. Also, the country that holds
itself out to be the template for liberal democracy had within its
boundaries one of the bloodiest civil wars ever.&nb sp; Therefore, liberal
democracy is useless for not waging war, which is to say, achieving world
peace. As far as pacifists obfuscating and impeding, there were/are no
pacifists among the neocons. The neocons took their ideology and ran with
it, and here we are, blaming the pacifists, even as the likes of Newt
Gingrich call for WWIII, Waging war to spread liberal democracy to maintain
world peace sounds like a sequel to Catch 22. It makes no sense at all.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/5/2006 1:14:30 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
In case any pacifists are treating this discussion train seriously, they
should understand that Fukuyama and Barnett both advocate processes that
would result in world peace. In Fukuyamas case as can be seen in his book
America at the Crossroads, he believes in taking a rather passive stance
because the process is, in his view, inevitable. Hegel as Kojeve taught
believed the end of history would be achieved through Capitalism. Marx
thought Hegel right except he got things backwards. The end of history
would be Communistic. That opinion prevailed until the fall of the USSR in
1991. After that Fukuyama wrote his book describing the Hegelian, the
Kojeve Hegelian end of history.
World peace is a great incentive. The Neocons embraced Fukuyamas thesis
except they did it a little too enthusiastically to suit Fukuyama. He
didnt agree with the idea that Liberal Democracy could be exported to Iraq;
so he parted company with the movement he was partly responsible for
founding.
Barnett too had a plan, a much more detailed plan for achieving world peace.
Once all nations are in the functioning core (aka Liberal Democracies) world
peace will be achieved. An important assumption is that Liberal-Democracies
do not war against Liberal Democracies. Everyone involved believes thats
the case, Fukuyama, Barnett and all the Neocons. World Peace is the
incentive for the Neocons to be proactive, but that isnt going so well for
them nowadays.
I asked a question that thus far no pacifist has answered. If (a
conditional word) world peace can be achieved by means of the spread of
Liberal-Democracy, shouldnt it be favored by pacifists even if it means a
few wars here and there to prevent Liberal-Democracy from losing ground --
not like the war in Iraq, but a war perhaps to prevent a rogue nation from
causing a lot of trouble? Pacifists like to tote up the dead. Surely there
would be fewer dead with a few wars to keep Liberal-Democracy on the
expansive straight and narrow than if all wars regardless of their merit
were to be resisted willy nilly -- given the fact that Pacifists merely
impede and obfuscate. They never succeed in actually stopping wars. In
fact their efforts seem to encourage such people as Osama bin Laden, Saddam
Hussein and Ahmadinejad. They hear abou t all that opposition to the
administrations policies, and they think they dont need to take the Bush
administration seriously. Saddam Hussein didnt take the Bush
administration seriously for similar reasons. And before Saddam Osama bin
Laden didnt take the Bush administration seriously.
What say ye pacifists? Are you ready to reform? What say ye?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
